On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote: It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology. It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation.
Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game.
That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it.
That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it.
So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look.
A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1.
LOL are you kidding me? Please, tell me what all these changes for the better supposedly were.
All is cool and dandy, if it actually mattered. First of all, you could do just fine in D2 by not using "the only true build". I know a guy who put 1 point into every skill on every tree and had loads of fun. Not everyone is hardcore competitive player you know. Sure D2's system was flawed (as was entirety of D2 compared to D1, but that's another story entirely) but no one cared and a ton of people were playing it for years both on battle.net and single-player/LAN.
Now, let's go the other way around and compare D3's UI/skills to D1. In D1 each class had exactly 1 skill, you couldn't improve it so no worries there. The stat points were there, but what was the most important were the limits (different for each class) so you couldn't just dump everything into vitality as in D2 and the big red + button served more as a progress indicator than anything else. Then you got the excellent system of learning and improving spells through books, which was tied to your intelligence stat, giving your warriors and rogues additional tools and at the same time leaving mages on top of that because they could get all those spells to much much higher levels.
All in all, it wasn't a "build your character" game. What was important there was hacking and slashing (and blasting) the monsters, which this games should be all about and both D2 and D3 have kind of lost their focus there.
There is a reason why I'm still playing D1 (just running around solo, hacking and slashing) and not D2 or D3, which I tried and abandoned (D3 after a week, D2 provided more entertainment).
It doesn't work like that unless the game is easy as shit and completely offline. If the game is hard, like D3 inferno at launch, or if it's competitive (optimizing farming, making money on the AH), then people demand efficiency and you're argument about people being able to do what they like is not correct. It's not viable, it punishes noobs who don't look up internet guides, and it's completely out-of-touch with how people actually play the game.
If you think about this objectively, instead of clinging to old and failed designs, like the D2 skill system, you'll see that D3 skill system is far superior and offers more meaningful and real choices than D2 could.
Yes, the skill system is not what made diablo 3 a disappointing game. With a better story, better balanced drops (ignoring the auction house) and a better constructed inferno mode I think D3 wouldn't have gotten nearly as much hate as it's gotten.
The skill system in D3 was actually super disappointing. Not only that, it wasn't fun to level up, which is one of the most important parts of any RPG, action- or otherwise. D3 did nothing to improve gaming, they threw everything good out the window and started from scratch, creating one of the highest grossing turds of all time. Thank god for the new kickstarter trend, because there seems to be some genuinely good games in the making.
Who knows.. who really cares? Its blizzard it will be something they talk about 2-5 years befor they are ready to even start beta.. and then we will just have to sit around and wait for them to release it and just endure endless hype and speculation :0
On March 14 2013 00:10 andrewlt wrote: I loved D1. It was the deepest, most tactical game in the entire series. In order to play D1 well, a player had to utilize the environment to their advantage. Warriors used doorways, chokes and other impediments to reduce the number of monsters they have to fight at any single time. Rogues and sorcerers did the same thing to kite better or shoot monsters at range with impunity. Warriors also used said impediments to corner ranged attackers like succubi who loved to run away.
D2 introduced so much dumb stuff like acid pools, reviving monsters and all sorts of other crap. It balanced that out by letting players get to ludicrously fast run speeds with gear.
Not that it matters, but acid pools were from D1 (the plague/pus spitters' attack), not D2, and they were absurdly annoying.
On March 18 2013 16:35 bduddy wrote: Also, if any admins happen to stop by, can they confirm or deny that TL never got an invite of any kind to cover this announcement?
As I already said in this post, Sixen said/confirmed this.
It would suck if this was a mobile-only game; I don't get the point of alienating PC users when PCs can perfectly run mobile content.
I think the conclusion that it's probably some non-MMO Warcraft or Starcraft thing, but when one reflects on that, they'd realize that that's not saying very much.
I think the most perplexing thing or biggest wrench in one's proverbial gears is that whole WoW fansite access/priority; Why only give WoW sites special stuff if it's not an MMO? and/or if it's not even Warcraft related? If it wasn't for that, the likelihood of it being something Blackstone/Phoenix/BAS—related would be more certain.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a game or port optimized for ARM-processors and touchscreen control.
They're not yet tapping the enormous potential that Android, iOs and to a far lesser extend Windows Phone / RT market, which is s devoid of good original games...
I've heard some pretty interesting rumors. It's definitely nothing anyone here has been guessing... I'm pretty excited to check it out, but also very... mmm... speculative? It's definitely going to make some people say "whaaa?"
On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote: It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology. It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation.
Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game.
That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it.
That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it.
So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look.
A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1.
LOL are you kidding me? Please, tell me what all these changes for the better supposedly were.
All is cool and dandy, if it actually mattered. First of all, you could do just fine in D2 by not using "the only true build". I know a guy who put 1 point into every skill on every tree and had loads of fun. Not everyone is hardcore competitive player you know. Sure D2's system was flawed (as was entirety of D2 compared to D1, but that's another story entirely) but no one cared and a ton of people were playing it for years both on battle.net and single-player/LAN.
Now, let's go the other way around and compare D3's UI/skills to D1. In D1 each class had exactly 1 skill, you couldn't improve it so no worries there. The stat points were there, but what was the most important were the limits (different for each class) so you couldn't just dump everything into vitality as in D2 and the big red + button served more as a progress indicator than anything else. Then you got the excellent system of learning and improving spells through books, which was tied to your intelligence stat, giving your warriors and rogues additional tools and at the same time leaving mages on top of that because they could get all those spells to much much higher levels.
All in all, it wasn't a "build your character" game. What was important there was hacking and slashing (and blasting) the monsters, which this games should be all about and both D2 and D3 have kind of lost their focus there.
There is a reason why I'm still playing D1 (just running around solo, hacking and slashing) and not D2 or D3, which I tried and abandoned (D3 after a week, D2 provided more entertainment).
It doesn't work like that unless the game is easy as shit and completely offline. If the game is hard, like D3 inferno at launch, or if it's competitive (optimizing farming, making money on the AH), then people demand efficiency and you're argument about people being able to do what they like is not correct. It's not viable, it punishes noobs who don't look up internet guides, and it's completely out-of-touch with how people actually play the game.
If you think about this objectively, instead of clinging to old and failed designs, like the D2 skill system, you'll see that D3 skill system is far superior and offers more meaningful and real choices than D2 could.
Yes, the skill system is not what made diablo 3 a disappointing game. With a better story, better balanced drops (ignoring the auction house) and a better constructed inferno mode I think D3 wouldn't have gotten nearly as much hate as it's gotten.
The skill system in D3 was actually super disappointing. Not only that, it wasn't fun to level up, which is one of the most important parts of any RPG, action- or otherwise. D3 did nothing to improve gaming, they threw everything good out the window and started from scratch, creating one of the highest grossing turds of all time. Thank god for the new kickstarter trend, because there seems to be some genuinely good games in the making.
Speak for yourself. I had lots of fun playing Diablo 3
On March 18 2013 21:03 MrBitter wrote: I've heard some pretty interesting rumors. It's definitely nothing anyone here has been guessing... I'm pretty excited to check it out, but also very... mmm... speculative? It's definitely going to make some people say "whaaa?"
On March 18 2013 21:03 MrBitter wrote: I've heard some pretty interesting rumors. It's definitely nothing anyone here has been guessing... I'm pretty excited to check it out, but also very... mmm... speculative? It's definitely going to make some people say "whaaa?"