|
Blizzard makes cool games but here is a little rant
Why is Blizzard so slow with developing games etc?
They had the chance to rule the moba market when dota was still a wc3 mod but didn't do anything. Now you have Heroes of the Storm with overprices heroes and skins.
B.net 2.0 interface is still worse than the old b.net. Features like automated tournaments are implemented many years after the release of sc2. Also why include skin rewards for leveling up but not develop the idea. Either develop it or not implement it at all.
Diablo 3
Why is stash space so limited (character slots as well)
Why is blood shard cap so limited
What is the point of having so many skills when only those that have sets built around them are useful
Why is every spell based on weapon damage, and the only stat that matters for your character is the primary stat?
Where is PvP
Hearthstone
Why only 9 deck slots? Why not give more deck slots as a reward for reaching level 60 with a class or something similar
Will there ever be more incentives to ladder other than getting card backs for reaching rank 20 or legend. Why not make seasons last longer and give better rewards based on your rank at the end of each season instead of resetting them every month?
WoW
How can GW2 make content patches every few weeks while a game with millions of subscribers had no new content for almost a year?
Where is WC4?
 
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
here's what I'm aware of, i'm not an expert so some of this might be bullshit but.
Blizzard's line has always been that they won't release a game that isn't ready. It only comes out when they are happy with it and that is why it takes a bit longer. I for one don't mind waiting a bit to get a better quality product.
Battlenet 2.0 ..i've never really explored everything you can do, I don't really have any real life friends who play games so.
It does feel lacking though
Hearthstone, I see deck slots as an issue that gets brought up a lot, personally it's never bothered me as I'm not rotating between 9 decks when I ladder.
With WoW didn't they release a new expansion fairly recently?
|
In defense of WoW, not too long ago another raid instance was opened, Blackforge Foundry. Given that WoW lategame is repetitive and rather easy (it's more about how much time you invest than how skilled you are) there's not too much reason to complain unless you want to criticize the game in general.
Instead of WC4, Blizzard is working on Overwatch(?) I think, a shooter which is stealing elements from several different games of the FPS genre. It is important to note that this is the first game for a very long time that completely differs from the known Blizzard multiverse.
Can't say much about Diablo since I stopped before RoS, but there's not too much you can do to keep a hack'n'slay game running and alive. The stash cap limit is a feature that slows down the game, which is nice for casual players. Not everyone knows all items, and some people value the time they spent checking through their loot. Again, you're critique goes more towards the general game design. Concerning that, it's more a "take it or leave it" thing. For me, it was leave it rather fast.
The PvP feature is somewhat implemented, apparently not so much on a seasonal or really competitive level.
The Hearthstone deck limit kinda sucks, I get that, but on the other hand it forces you to actually research and think about what cards to include in your deck every time you build a new one. Of course, if you're into googling for a certain deck and simply copy that, you won't have a fun time being limited to 9 decks only.
Saying Heroes is overpriced might be true, but Blizzard never was a cheap-selling company. They still sold WoL for 40-60 USD in the official store when HotS was out for a while. You should know that by now about Blizzard.
Great times including Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, Diablo II and StarCraft I are over. I understand your rant but I can really shorten my post down to a tl;dr of "deal with it".
|
Echoing OP, I really feel Blizzard has dropped the ball since activision merge and has never been able to pick it up again.
|
On April 21 2015 19:37 boxerfred wrote:
Instead of WC4, Blizzard is working on Overwatch(?) I think, a shooter which is stealing elements from several different games of the FPS genre. It is important to note that this is the first game for a very long time that completely differs from the known Blizzard multiverse.
it's pretty much TF2 in a new skin
Can't say much about Diablo since I stopped before RoS, but there's not too much you can do to keep a hack'n'slay game running and alive. The stash cap limit is a feature that slows down the game, which is nice for casual players. Not everyone knows all items, and some people value the time they spent checking through their loot. Again, you're critique goes more towards the general game design. Concerning that, it's more a "take it or leave it" thing. For me, it was leave it rather fast.
The PvP feature is somewhat implemented, apparently not so much on a seasonal or really competitive level.
apart from that the stash space is really needed for the very basics.
5classes, about 4 sets each class, then elemental items, and bam your stash is full already, GL squezing in any extra items.
also brawling is to much of a disgrace to be called PvP
The Hearthstone deck limit kinda sucks, I get that, but on the other hand it forces you to actually research and think about what cards to include in your deck every time you build a new one. Of course, if you're into googling for a certain deck and simply copy that, you won't have a fun time being limited to 9 decks only.
It's very much the exact reverse, with all your decks being dedicated to ladder/do daily's with, you have no room to make a fun deck or experiment at all, confining gameplay due to lazy design.
also the answer blizzard has given to this is hilarious, claiming that more than 9 decks would be to much to comprehend.
|
it's pretty much TF2 in a new skin
Oh come on, just because its a class based shooter its a copy of tf2? From hearing tf2 players that have played the beta they received the game quite well even when going in with low expectations. Even classes you can sort of draw parallels from are very different: Tracer for example with her time reversal mechanic etc. Also classes that literally dont have anything in common with tf2s classes and the fact that it has and will get more classes. I really dont get why people bash on overwatch so much just because it in the same genre of tf2.
|
On April 21 2015 20:22 Kazahk wrote:Oh come on, just because its a class based shooter its a copy of tf2? From hearing tf2 players that have played the beta they received the game quite well even when going in with low expectations. Even classes you can sort of draw parallels from are very different: Tracer for example with her time reversal mechanic etc. Also classes that literally dont have anything in common with tf2s classes and the fact that it has and will get more classes. I really dont get why people bash on overwatch so much just because it in the same genre of tf2.
It's because only Valve is allowed to copy mods made for games from other companies by 3rd parties. At least Overwatch is pretending to be a completely new game (and I suppose it might be completely different, haven't tried).
Hearthstone: completely agree on the short seasons. It's infuriating that the only thing keeping me from legend is not being able to play 400 games in one month. WHY ARE THE SEASONS SO SHORT?
|
On April 21 2015 21:32 d00p wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 20:22 Kazahk wrote:it's pretty much TF2 in a new skin Oh come on, just because its a class based shooter its a copy of tf2? From hearing tf2 players that have played the beta they received the game quite well even when going in with low expectations. Even classes you can sort of draw parallels from are very different: Tracer for example with her time reversal mechanic etc. Also classes that literally dont have anything in common with tf2s classes and the fact that it has and will get more classes. I really dont get why people bash on overwatch so much just because it in the same genre of tf2. It's because only Valve is allowed to copy mods made for games from other companies by 3rd parties. At least Overwatch is pretending to be a completely new game (and I suppose it might be completely different, haven't tried). Hearthstone: completely agree on the short seasons. It's infuriating that the only thing keeping me from legend is not being able to play 400 games in one month. WHY ARE THE SEASONS SO SHORT?
Because Blizzard likes cancer decks, why play ramp druid or ctrl warrior when you can win games 3 times as fast by going Facetard
|
On April 21 2015 18:58 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
Blizzard makes cool games but here is a little rant
Why is Blizzard so slow with developing games etc?
slow time in development is the price of high quality and polish.
EA pumped out C&C content quickly... they made RA3 in little over a year.
Ask Greg Black and Tim Morten how that worked out.
EALA was shuttered and they both ended up at Blizzard working in the RTS Team.
On April 21 2015 18:58 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
They had the chance to rule the moba market when dota was still a wc3 mod but didn't do anything. Now you have Heroes of the Storm with overprices heroes and skins.
Rob Pardo explained this in his 5 hour marathon long interview after leaving Blizzard.
They did not have the development bandwidth to support the millions of subscribers flocking to WoW AND jump on the DOTA bandwagon as it was beginning as a WC3 map.
So they fully supported WoW and let the community do its thing with DOTA.
Here is the link to the Pardo interview.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/473471-4-hours-of-pardo-discussing-blizzard-game-design
On April 21 2015 18:58 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
Where is WC4?
no way Blizzard develops SC2 expansions and builds a brand new WC4 at the same time. Blizzard put the brakes on pumping out RTS content the day WoW hit 5 million subscribers. that's just an economic reality man... WoW makes way more cash and Blizzard has allocated their resources accordingly.
The pace of RTS development is way way slower than it was from 1994 to 2003 because their is not enough cash to be made to justify a constant stream of new content.
So we get an expansion every 2.5 years 
As an RTS fan, I'll take it.
We're lucky they make any RTS games at all.
|
Hungry dogs are bold and reckless, which sometimes lead them to success. When hungry dogs become successful, they become fat and self-satisfied. Fat dogs are slow and unable to keep the rhythm of the rest of the pack, unable to compete with the hungry dogs.
|
On April 21 2015 19:51 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +
The Hearthstone deck limit kinda sucks, I get that, but on the other hand it forces you to actually research and think about what cards to include in your deck every time you build a new one. Of course, if you're into googling for a certain deck and simply copy that, you won't have a fun time being limited to 9 decks only.
It's very much the exact reverse, with all your decks being dedicated to ladder/do daily's with, you have no room to make a fun deck or experiment at all, confining gameplay due to lazy design. also the answer blizzard has given to this is hilarious, claiming that more than 9 decks would be to much to comprehend.
This makes me cringe so hard as a CCG/TCG player. Sure some games I may only have 4-5 decks with 1-3 for experiments/future support cards, but if I really really really really enjoy the game Ill be making decks all day long, hell for yugioh alone I've got:
Yami/Yugi Replica
Kaiba Replica
Mai Replica
Joey Replica
Jayden Replica
Spellcaster Deck
Dragons Deck
Mess around deck
Special Summon Deck
Satellarknights Deck
Hunder Deck
Shaddolls Deck
Direct Damage Deck
2xStarter Decks I personally built
Thats just decks I consider at least 80% completed....I've got too many below that threshold to count...but of ones that are at least 80% completed I've got 15 decks....
|
Why do they put zero effort into their storylines and characters? They are so uncreative in this aspect it really frustrates me.
|
Blizzard's line has always been that they won't release a game that isn't ready. It only comes out when they are happy with it and that is why it takes a bit longer. I for one don't mind waiting a bit to get a better quality product.
Indeed. But they are also very inefficient. It's not just working until it's done. When they worked on StarCraft 1, they kept setting deadlines for a few months in to the future, working their asses off, not finishing in time, setting a new imminent deadline, working their asses off, failing again, and so on many times.
When they saw the demo for Dominion and decided to start from the beginning, that was a good decision. Their game lacked quality compared to what they saw. But trying to finish a game in one month, for many months in a row, is not good or efficient. It's better to take ones time and focus. To "hurry slowly" as a roman emperor once said.
SC2 was worked on since gods damned 2005. That's a lot of reworking the same things over and over, and a lot of inefficiency.
So I submit the hypothesis that Blizzard, while they do take their time when they should, and do refuse to release an unfinished game, are also bad at time management and efficient work. They need better planning and management.
|
On April 22 2015 00:49 vOdToasT wrote:
SC2 was worked on since gods damned 2005. That's a lot of reworking the same things over and over, and a lot of inefficiency.
again, if u go back to the Rob Pardo interview i posted. there were big breaks in the development of SC2 because of the mushrooming WoW subscriber base. the rts team was dismantled to put people on WoW.
Its also been mentioned in several other interviews.
Pardo began as lead designer... got moved to WoW .. they hired Browder and put him in charge.
this slowed things down a bit... but that is what happens when a company gets bigger.
RTS fans have to swallow the fact that Blizzard has way higher priorities that make a lot more money.
making software involves more than "just hire more guys"... especially when u r protecting your brand.
|
I think WC4 would do pretty damn well, the reception to the hero stuff in 2002 wasn't that great and IIRC Blizzard toned down the RPG elements due to negative feedback.
With Dota and LoL being two of the most popular games in the world I think there's definitely a market for a hero-based RTS in 201x (or even 202x if Blizz is slow as usual)
|
At the end of the day we still continue to play these games.
|
On April 22 2015 01:46 Cheren wrote:
I think WC4 would do pretty damn well, the reception to the hero stuff in 2002 wasn't that great and IIRC Blizzard toned down the RPG elements due to negative feedback.
WC4's success depends drastically on the success of Heroes, LotV and Hearthstone. They have a reputation they've let slip in the last half-decade or so. They have to prove themselves again.
See how little hype lotv has so far? People are prepared for disappointment.
|
It's been said a million times. Blizzard just got lucky with BW.
Lost vikings, Rock n Roll Racing, and Blackthorne were OK.
WC1 was suck.
WC2 and expansions were pretty cool, but the game was lacking a lot (mainly because it was sorta pre internet). And the game is still hugely imba and buggy.
Diablo 1 was ok. A bit slow and online lacked as well.
Diablo 2 was cool for a while, the expansion sort of made it absurd imho.
SC was sort of shitty, BW was sort of shitty until it got patched pretty great and then KESPA/ESPORTS took over the balance via maps and bugs and what not.
WC3 was ok. TFT was slightly better, but still the game was tired and didnt feel exactly right as an RTS. Pretty imba, too much luck, repetitive maps, etc.
Dota wasn't even blizzard's thing (again people taking the maps and doing their own shit with the game).
WoW was a novelty, got tedious and played out. Too much shit going on to make for a decent competitive scene or a PvE, or whatever. It's just too many things at once. And the be all end all is just pay(or play time) to win.
Hearthstone is just like a shittier version of MTG that has some pros and cons imho. The single player stuff is challenging, but again it's just pay to win grind fest and even at the top levels, it's just netdecks and luck.
D3 was like a shittier version of Torchlight, which was a slightly updated version of D2. I didn't play RoS so I can't comment on that. I do know that the main selling point was the PvP arena that was advertised, and that still doesn't and probably will never exist. Fuck that.
Heroes of the Storm is actually pretty decent. I don't really like MOBAs or team orient games at all, but this one has a lot of strategy, decision making, map awareness, etc (basically, Skill) that other mobas lack or are not emphasis on. Most other mobas have a long tedious grinding/laning phase and complicated/convoluted item building shit to memorize. That being said, it's still a team game thing and it's frustrating if you don't have 5 friends or a competitive team to play with.
Overwatch looks really good so far. To me it's like a cross between quake and TF or Unreal tournament (the various modes you could do are pretty similar). Out of FPS games, those were probably my favorites. This is the game I will be updating my PC for.
I think blizzard doesn't handle their design process on GUI, and infrastructure, implementation, and balance very well and that's probably a lot of the reason they get so much shit.
Tbh, it's not like they've gone down hill, they were never really uphill to begin with. Most of their games are slightly above average. Only BW really was the top dog of the genre and spawned an entire industry.
If you were to compare other gaming companies track records, they are kind of similar. For example I play fighting games, and capcom is in a lot of ways identical to blizzard.
|
Oh please if you dont consider WC3 the masterpiece that it was then I dont even know what to say to you.
Blizzard has definitely gone downhill with their recent games.
|
It definitely wasn't a masterpiece balance wise; poor undead. That being said it was my childhood game and I love the shit out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
