|
So Im what you would consider a professional complainer.
Ive played mostly Blizzard games, and Ive been playing amongst the higher skilled people fot the last years. In WoW, I hit rank 1 arena, In starcraft i barely scraped GM, in Hearthstone i hit Legend.
One thing I find myself doing, is never beeing happy with the balance or state of the game completely. I enjoy the game, but theres always a list of things Blizzard doesnt see,they dont care about and its their fault. Be it, Hunter in Hearthstone, Druid in WoW or Protoss in Starcraft - something is never quite right.
But its not just me, everyday there are thousands of people complaining about similar and other issues. LOTV is a prime example, the game is too fast, Deathballs too big, AOE too strong, Bases mine out too fast.
A lot of people consider themselves to be experts in a wide variety of subjects. But this brings me to my thought and reason for this thread.
Maybe blizzard is actually trying to address these issues, but really they just cant?, or certain things are just too difficult to accomplish.
Maybe our expectations are way too high.
Like LOTV, my guess is that while David Kim is sincerely trying to address the issues, hes just having a hard time to fix them, or something. People are expecting a game to rival Brood War, but it was probably just luck that the game had such succssess.
Or maybe blizzard is actually so full of itself s, that they dont give a f''' about listening to good advice.
I dont know.
 
|
I don't think people dislike Blizzard games. I think they like disliking Blizzard.
You have to admit that the vast majority of balance whining is silly, and many of the ideas about LoTV are uniformed and poorly thought out. Taken as a collective, the "advice" given to Blizzard is a contradictory ball of incoherent teenaged rambling frustration.
Blizzard makes some bad decisions, but judging by a lot of TL comments you'd think the latest project was being headed by Darth Kim to create the Death StarCraft and end the universe.
|
On May 28 2015 00:43 Textual wrote:
I don't think people dislike Blizzard games. I think they like disliking Blizzard.
You have to admit that the vast majority of balance whining is silly, and many of the ideas about LoTV are uniformed and poorly thought out. Taken as a collective, the "advice" given to Blizzard is a contradictory ball of incoherent teenaged rambling frustration.
Blizzard makes some bad decisions, but judging by a lot of TL comments you'd think the latest project was being headed by Darth Kim to create the Death StarCraft and end the universe.
TL as "as a collective" is pissed at Blizzard for a bunch of reasons, and all of them stem from Blizzard not taking both the community and SCBW's godlike legacy seriously.
We understand that Blizzard only listens to money, so we suggest a proven method of continual crowd funding so that SC2 doesn't 100% guaranteed die with LOTV in the form of skins, announcers, UIs, etc to provide Blizz a revenue stream post release.
IGNORED.
We understand that Blizzard doesn't want to put its A team on LOTV (we get an underfunded undermanned team instead...) so we suggest economic improvements for the beta that would cause the game to be more skill based and have games be more indicative of a player's chosen economic style.
IGNORED.
People that could ignore the crippling blunder that was battlenet.20 decided to continue on to HOTS, where Blizzard decided that its vision for SC2 was 3 hour long stalemates of swarmhosts and spore crawlers (i won't even bring up the mothership core, which singlehandedly made me personally detest sc2 because of how horrible its design is). Disregarding the detrimental effect HOTS had on viewer counts and players, Blizzard only just NOW decided "hm, maybe everyone bitching means we should actually do something."
IGNORED for the better part of two years.
Chat channels
Do you really want them though?
Clans
I mean I GUESS we'll eventually add them
Facebook integration
Day 1
Automated tournaments from WC3
Someday
|
United States4883 Posts
I think when we look at the state of Blizzard games right now, we really need to consider the direction that they're taking. Contrasted to the old days when Blizzard set themselves up as the RTS king with Warcraft and Starcraft, they are really taking a new direction in game innovation right now.
In 2008, Blizzard merged with Activision to create a corporate monster. While both divisions continue to produce games independent of one another, it is obvious that they influence one another, and there was certainly some rearrangement of staff during this time period. Fast forward to 2010, SC2 and WoW: Cataclysm come out, with Diablo III in development. Looking at the new generation of games coming out of Activision Blizzard, it's obvious that they were trying to reinvent the classics rather than repeat them, as these games resembled what we thought we knew, but something felt...off.
Since then, we've had increasingly declining iterations of WoW while SC2 has failed to improve significantly, all the meanwhile Blizzard has been exploring literally every genre possible: MOBA games with Heroes of the Storm, trading card games with Hearthstone, and FPS with Overwatch. What's significant about these games also is that they are resolutely different from their contemporaries as Blizzard is attempting something "new" with each one of them. For instance, Hearthsone's use of heroes and straighforward battle mechanics create a different dynamic than your classic MtG rulesets; Heroes of the Storm use global xp and different maps and objectives in a genre that is known for having only one real competitive map. Overwatch also promises to be new and different.
Considering the general trend of games, I expect that this complete redesign of SC2 in LotV is geared toward creating something "new". I've talked to several people who have all told me that although the new economy isn't bad per se, it just doesn't feel like Starcraft anymore. While we're all used to the macro-centric "get a lot of bases and kill your opponent with overwhelming numbers" type of game, it seems that Blizzard has a different goal in mind for LotV. From what I have seen, they want to create fast-paced, low-economy games that promote a lot of small skirmishes where you need to micro every single unit individually (see: TheDwf's MOBA level number of abilities).
Now, whether you consider this innovation to be good or bad is a different story. I personally can't get on board with a lot of the new Blizzard games, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fun or don't have competitive potential. It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward. I think a lot of Blizzard's failure with SC2, WoW, and Diablo III are largely due to a new set of management and development coupled with a push for innovation that the developers just weren't ready to try. The rest of Blizzard's games will probably succeed with flying colors, but it might be time to give up on SC2 being the game we wished it would be.
|
i stopped worrying about my performance in Starcraft once i moved out of the house and started paying my own rent and cleaning my own bathroom... this was September 2006.
i try my best and have fun whether i win or lose. do i get rolled every weekend by some 16 year old whose been playing the game for 6 months... probably... i don't care..as long as its fun.
the matchmaker works well for me... and i've played in leagues as low as silver and as high as diamond in 1v1s.. i'm in diamond now. near the highest in the league i've ever been.
my range in 2v2s is Bronze to Masters.
i'm a happy camper .. Blizzard is awesome.
if you're constantly getting angry.. play a different game... do something else..
to those constantly angry at Blizzard i'd like to state very gently.. "maybe its something outside the game that you are angry about".
the minute SC2 starts to feel like an unfulfilling "job" .. i quit and play some other game.
i'm no big SC2 expert.. but i do know what i think is fun.. and i'm having fun.
On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
I've talked to several people who have all told me that although the new economy isn't bad per se, it just doesn't feel like Starcraft anymore.
Browder, Black, and Morten were all big former C&C guys. they are giving the game more of a C&C feel.
People constantly complaining about BLizzard's support of teh RTS genre should only COMPARE the support to what other companies provide rather than some pie-in-the-sky limitless dream they have of "ideal support".
we are consumers.. all we can do is choose the product we like the best.
If people just complain and spend no money then every RTS game will go the way of C&C and Age of Empires.
On May 28 2015 00:43 Textual wrote:
You have to admit that the vast majority of balance whining is silly, and many of the ideas about LoTV are uniformed and poorly thought out. Taken as a collective, the "advice" given to Blizzard is a contradictory ball of incoherent teenaged rambling frustration.
true,
its like a parent-child relationship almost.
|
I think that the biggest problem we as a community have with Blizzard is one: We expect Blizzard to be Blizzard.
Blizzard is regarded for 1 thing, they don't make bad games: The fact that Blizzard is such a huge company is actually amazing given the low number of games they have compared to other companies like them, just the way we threat starcraft is pretty amazing, if a game is capable giving you fun gameplay for a fair amount of hours is considered a good game, maybe some days or weeks, games like Skyrim or Dark Souls are greath games and I'm pretty confident they aren't as played as Starcraft, theres people that claim playing these games for over hundreds of hours, and then you take a look at SC and see people who have been playing since 2010 with thousand or tens of thousands of games played, its pretty amazing.
Thats the thing with Starcraft, we don't expect it to be a good game, we expect it to be the BEST game ever, period. And is not bad we just need to learn that perfection is hard to achieve for a reason.
And I'm not saying I like everything, or even most, of the stuff they do or decide to not do (including pretty obvious stuff that should've been done years ago), but the fact that I play Blizzard games so much (SC2, HS, SC:BW,WC3, D:II, D:III) shows that even though I don't like what Blizzard may do in some stuff, I still like Blizzard games simple because of that, Blizzard games are fucking good.
|
On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward.
This kind of statement implies that people enjoying old games are backwards to say the least. Nobody needs to adapt. If I like something, I stay. If I don't, I move on. Blizzard made boring games the past years, so I moved on. I didn't move "forward" though, I wasn't becoming some sort of better gamer or whatever you tried to say there.
Btw, Blizzard as a company sucks and I can't identify myself with this name anymore. I remember the glorious days I loved them, but once they openly screwed their fans by going into full blown war with KeSPA it went down rapidly. Since then I feel very indifferent about them.
|
On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
I think when we look at the state of Blizzard games right now, we really need to consider the direction that they're taking. Contrasted to the old days when Blizzard set themselves up as the RTS king with Warcraft and Starcraft, they are really taking a new direction in game innovation right now.
In 2008, Blizzard merged with Activision to create a corporate monster. While both divisions continue to produce games independent of one another, it is obvious that they influence one another, and there was certainly some rearrangement of staff during this time period. Fast forward to 2010, SC2 and WoW: Cataclysm come out, with Diablo III in development. Looking at the new generation of games coming out of Activision Blizzard, it's obvious that they were trying to reinvent the classics rather than repeat them, as these games resembled what we thought we knew, but something felt...off.
Since then, we've had increasingly declining iterations of WoW while SC2 has failed to improve significantly, all the meanwhile Blizzard has been exploring literally every genre possible: MOBA games with Heroes of the Storm, trading card games with Hearthstone, and FPS with Overwatch. What's significant about these games also is that they are resolutely different from their contemporaries as Blizzard is attempting something "new" with each one of them. For instance, Hearthsone's use of heroes and straighforward battle mechanics create a different dynamic than your classic MtG rulesets; Heroes of the Storm use global xp and different maps and objectives in a genre that is known for having only one real competitive map. Overwatch also promises to be new and different.
Considering the general trend of games, I expect that this complete redesign of SC2 in LotV is geared toward creating something "new". I've talked to several people who have all told me that although the new economy isn't bad per se, it just doesn't feel like Starcraft anymore. While we're all used to the macro-centric "get a lot of bases and kill your opponent with overwhelming numbers" type of game, it seems that Blizzard has a different goal in mind for LotV. From what I have seen, they want to create fast-paced, low-economy games that promote a lot of small skirmishes where you need to micro every single unit individually (see: TheDwf's MOBA level number of abilities).
Now, whether you consider this innovation to be good or bad is a different story. I personally can't get on board with a lot of the new Blizzard games, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fun or don't have competitive potential. It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward. I think a lot of Blizzard's failure with SC2, WoW, and Diablo III are largely due to a new set of management and development coupled with a push for innovation that the developers just weren't ready to try. The rest of Blizzard's games will probably succeed with flying colors, but it might be time to give up on SC2 being the game we wished it would be.
That's the thing about them. They're always trying to reinvent the wheel especially when it comes to RTS. It's constant and when you get too big (where there is talk of a teams, b teams and what have you) the content and value gets scrutinized. It's all been done. All they're doing is rehashing and borrowing certain concepts that have been done before for the most part.
|
There were fundamental changes in the underlying program in the transition from sc1 to sc2. It reminds me of the comparison between rome total war 1 and rtw2.
RTW2 is graphically impressive compared to rtw1 but the way in which units interacted with each other changed, which changed the way armies fought with each other. rtw2 uses a system where soldiers 1v1 each other (along with doing weird dances in the process) and units don't have mass (rtw2 has no unit collision so units don't stay in formation, walk through each other, among other issues) which made it so battles are awkward. And the battles are why you're playing total war in the first place. So CA dropped the ball there and it's a permanent flaw.
And this is the overall sentiment I get with sc2. New units, new artwork, new maps, even new economy system, whatever. But there are some weird underlying issues with sc2 that probably won't be addressed with lotv because they are core to the program that sc2 uses. One thing that comes to mind is http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro .
So the answer is probably
Maybe blizzard is actually trying to address these issues, but really they just cant?, or certain things are just too difficult to accomplish.
as in limitations brought about because of the engine prevents changes that makes sc2 feel more like its predecessor.
|
I think there is a certain kind of atmosphere of perpetual dissatisfaction among players, which seems to crossover to every genre and platform. It's kind of like, no matter what is put into a game, it's never 'good enough'. It's amazing to me, because I grew up using like second-hand outdated computers and playing some really low-end games, which were fun, don't get me wrong, but now I see these awesome beautiful games with all these features and people are like "This game is shit."
Wow.
|
Sc2 is fundamentally flawed by design, as it was produced lopsided. Blizzard aimed to create a hyped Esport, a spectacle, a fast paced competitive game. A couple of things were overlooked in this creation process and i don't think Blizzard is interested in fixing them. Even though it could be done.
Appart from that, i agree with Ninazerg. People are too bitchy about their games nowadays.
On May 28 2015 03:21 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward. This kind of statement implies that people enjoying old games are backwards to say the least. Nobody needs to adapt. If I like something, I stay. If I don't, I move on. Blizzard made boring games the past years, so I moved on. I didn't move "forward" though, I wasn't becoming some sort of better gamer or whatever you tried to say there. Btw, Blizzard as a company sucks and I can't identify myself with this name anymore. I remember the glorious days I loved them, but once they openly screwed their fans by going into full blown war with KeSPA it went down rapidly. Since then I feel very indifferent about them.
true as well. What kind of mindset is it, that you promote by encouraging us to adapt and move forward? Is it a good thing to "move forward and adapt" for it's own sake? No. I play games to enjoy them, to have fun, to be challenged. If an older title does this better than a new one, i do not need to adapt. Do i lose on something, when not "adapting"? No. I don't feel sorry for not making myself like games, that are not as fun and complex in my opinion. Or to make the comparison concrete: Why would i give up playing SC:BW (yes you can do that, yes you find people to play with) and play Sc2 instead, when i don't enjoy the game as much and must force myself to like it? I dont see such a reason.
|
I love Blizzard because I'm a shareholder. $$$
|
Canada11355 Posts
On May 28 2015 09:31 batsnacks wrote:
I love Blizzard because I'm a shareholder. $$$
When did you invest and apprx what % return have you earned?
|
I was never under the impression that SC2's problem was the lack of balance, even though balance whining is very much a thing. People are more likely bored with it than angry about the balance. The expansions were shy and conservative and whatnot. The main factor probably is that the competition is crazy - it's hard for a RTS to compete when MOBAs are so accessible and popular. But SC2 has taken the direction of balance at all cost instead of creativity.
Can Blizzard our expectations? No. Too many highly critical gamers with very different expectations and opinions. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
|
honestly tl is so complain heavy that it's impossible to address them all.
I would say the game play itself is hardly the main issue.
It's a combined issue of:
1. rts being the not-so-big genre and fans are frustrated (sc2 being the only relevant rts in international scene)
2. the game doesn't have a good social feature for friends to keep grinding games out. Partly due to terrible b.net but also the nature of rts.
3. Game is getting aged, people move on.
|
People should be grateful that Blizzard is still sticking around in the RTS genre, even though most other players have jumped off the wagon.
Think to yourself: What game would I play if StarCraft 2 wasn't an option?
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 28 2015 03:21 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward. This kind of statement implies that people enjoying old games are backwards to say the least. Nobody needs to adapt. If I like something, I stay. If I don't, I move on. Blizzard made boring games the past years, so I moved on. I didn't move "forward" though, I wasn't becoming some sort of better gamer or whatever you tried to say there. Btw, Blizzard as a company sucks and I can't identify myself with this name anymore. I remember the glorious days I loved them, but once they openly screwed their fans by going into full blown war with KeSPA it went down rapidly. Since then I feel very indifferent about them.
I was implying that we get over whatever grudges we have with Blizzard for not being true to their roots and enjoy their newer games without preconceptions of what we expect from their title. So yeah, it's obvious you aren't doing that :p.
On May 28 2015 06:48 ninazerg wrote:
I think there is a certain kind of atmosphere of perpetual dissatisfaction among players, which seems to crossover to every genre and platform. It's kind of like, no matter what is put into a game, it's never 'good enough'. It's amazing to me, because I grew up using like second-hand outdated computers and playing some really low-end games, which were fun, don't get me wrong, but now I see these awesome beautiful games with all these features and people are like "This game is shit."
Wow.
It may just be nostalgia speaking, but those classic games actually were amazing. Pokemon Red/Blue is fucking epic. Also, Avatar is overrated, just like many other "beautiful" games; seriously, "unobtainium"? You couldn't come up with something more clever, James Cameron?
On May 28 2015 07:18 Cele wrote:Sc2 is fundamentally flawed by design, as it was produced lopsided. Blizzard aimed to create a hyped Esport, a spectacle, a fast paced competitive game. A couple of things were overlooked in this creation process and i don't think Blizzard is interested in fixing them. Even though it could be done. Appart from that, i agree with Ninazerg. People are too bitchy about their games nowadays. Show nested quote +On May 28 2015 03:21 GeckoXp wrote:On May 28 2015 01:22 SC2John wrote:
It just means that we as gamers need to adapt to the new way of doing things if we want to move forward. This kind of statement implies that people enjoying old games are backwards to say the least. Nobody needs to adapt. If I like something, I stay. If I don't, I move on. Blizzard made boring games the past years, so I moved on. I didn't move "forward" though, I wasn't becoming some sort of better gamer or whatever you tried to say there. Btw, Blizzard as a company sucks and I can't identify myself with this name anymore. I remember the glorious days I loved them, but once they openly screwed their fans by going into full blown war with KeSPA it went down rapidly. Since then I feel very indifferent about them. true as well. What kind of mindset is it, that you promote by encouraging us to adapt and move forward? Is it a good thing to "move forward and adapt" for it's own sake? No. I play games to enjoy them, to have fun, to be challenged. If an older title does this better than a new one, i do not need to adapt. Do i lose on something, when not "adapting"? No. I don't feel sorry for not making myself like games, that are not as fun and complex in my opinion. Or to make the comparison concrete: Why would i give up playing SC:BW (yes you can do that, yes you find people to play with) and play Sc2 instead, when i don't enjoy the game as much and must force myself to like it? I dont see such a reason.
Single-game mindset is the mindset of Starcraft players...or basically any hardcore ESPORTS gamer. That's a problem. I'm not saying you have to give up playing BW to play SC2...it's very well possible to enjoy both at the same time, though you may enjoy one over the other. Like I said, that statement implies rather that we give up our preconceptions and enjoy games for their innovations. We don't have to hate certain games or hate Blizzard just because a game doesn't live up to our expectations of the Blizzard name.
On May 28 2015 15:42 helpman176 wrote:
People should be grateful that Blizzard is still sticking around in the RTS genre, even though most other players have jumped off the wagon.
Think to yourself: What game would I play if StarCraft 2 wasn't an option?
SC:BW :p
|
On May 28 2015 16:29 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2015 06:48 ninazerg wrote:
I think there is a certain kind of atmosphere of perpetual dissatisfaction among players, which seems to crossover to every genre and platform. It's kind of like, no matter what is put into a game, it's never 'good enough'. It's amazing to me, because I grew up using like second-hand outdated computers and playing some really low-end games, which were fun, don't get me wrong, but now I see these awesome beautiful games with all these features and people are like "This game is shit."
Wow. It may just be nostalgia speaking, but those classic games actually were amazing. Pokemon Red/Blue is fucking epic. Also, Avatar is overrated, just like many other "beautiful" games; seriously, "unobtainium"? You couldn't come up with something more clever, James Cameron?
I love the old games. Don't get me wrong; I'm just saying there are some cool games now and a new generation of players are taking them for granted.
|
nvm. eSPOrts hypEezzzzzzzzzzzZ
|
On May 28 2015 16:29 SC2John wrote:
Single-game mindset is the mindset of Starcraft players...or basically any hardcore ESPORTS gamer. That's a problem. I'm not saying you have to give up playing BW to play SC2...it's very well possible to enjoy both at the same time, though you may enjoy one over the other. Like I said, that statement implies rather that we give up our preconceptions and enjoy games for their innovations. We don't have to hate certain games or hate Blizzard just because a game doesn't live up to our expectations of the Blizzard name.
Sorry thats not fair. You are just working under the assumption, that i or other people who genuinely don't enjoy Starcraft 2 and bring up a comparison to SC:BW (for instance) have a certain mindset. What kind of mindset would that be, what are you assuming is going on in the head of the "average esport hardcore fan" that makes them bitter? And why are you arguing with bitterness in the first place? I personally do not feel the way you describe. Im over 30 yo, i have limited time for gaming, even though it's a passion of mine and i decided to dedicate my limited time to a small range of games, rather then following/playing a lot of them. The reason i don't enjoy Sc2 is not, my high expectations towards blizzard games were not met, it's just i don't enjoy the gameplay. I don't hate Blizzard or any of their games, i just don't play the games that don't enjoy.
You are over complicating things. If i see an episode of a new TV series and i don't like it, i won't watch the next episode, or i won't after i took some time to get sure it doesn't fit my interests. Im not hating on HBO, or whoever did it, im not disappointed, im just not interested. And that's the exact same case here.
Ofc i could spend time with Sc2 and find that reasonable or mediocre enjoying, but honestly i don't because i see no value in it, when i can spend my time with games i genuinely enjoy a lot. and then it doesn't matter to me, how old those games are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
