If they confirm features that should have been in the game soon after release like PvP Deathmatch/arena, the possibility to sell character, that one they said would in the game guess they don't need to deliver anything they announce nowadays and just do it like The WarZ, oh sorry, Infestation Survivor Stories.
I am pretty sure it is going to be an expansion. PvP will likely go in at the time, but I think people who played D3 prime will likely get that as well. Blizzard is pretty good about back rolling features if they promised them in a previous release. I expect one new class, a more robust endgame based on user feed back and improved mosters.
I'm actually looking forward to a d3 expansion, after having removed any rose colored nostalgia glasses. D3 is certainly not better than d2(which is far far far from perfect itself), but it's an adequete enough game on it's own merits. Blizzard's record has always been to release a decent-to-good ranged game, and then release an absolutely amazing expansion that changes and adds huge amounts of content to make it into a great game.
D2:LoD wasn't just 2 new classes and a new act 5. It was also jewels, charms, runes, runewords, crafted items, ethereal items, class-specific items, double the number of set/unique items, 2nd weapon slot, and hirelings that could actually travel from act to act, among other changes. After the expansion was still more to come with synergies being added and uberdiablo for some more endgame things to do, and I guess respec is in now too. D2 was less than half the game it is now before the expansion. It was still good of course, but it didn't become great until later. I could make a similar argument for almost every blizzard title released (wc2, sc, wc3, sc2). What draws me to blizzard games isn't that they're great and get it right the first time around (rarely does one ever), but that they continue to heavily support those games so they can become great.
If they confirm features that should have been in the game soon after release and package it in an paid expansion I'm gonna be mad. Like PvP Deathmatch/arena, the possibility to sell character, that one they said would be in the game, guess they don't need to deliver anything they announce nowadays and just do it like The WarZ, oh sorry, Infestation Survivor Stories.
I think a lot of people were expecting it to be related to D3 and got to love those delayed features just like B.Net 2.0, no? We don't release a product until we're happy with it. Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the direction the company is going. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Unless it's gonna be some really groundbreaking announcement for D3 I'm not gonna bother with the game. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Oh fuck me, just realized they are gonna do it like WoW release the big patch with classe balances, itemization and everything a bit before and then unlock the content at the expansion released date with features that should have been in Vanilla D3 and will now packaged in a paid expansion.
gonna be an xpak, have 2 new classes, 2 new acts, pvp, some other random gameplay mechanics, more skills for existing classes probably, change around the crafting system a bit, and totally screw up what semblance of normality the current auction house has.
I enjoyed the campaign of d3, will buy the xpak and will enjoy the campaign of d3x. I'll be sure to reinstall and level a character that I don't hate, witch doctors were extremely not fun for me.
HOWEVER, expect this game early 2015, or very late 2014. If we're lucky we'll get it sooner, but this is blizzard, don't hold your breath.
On August 02 2013 23:33 Iblis wrote: 2 new classes and 2 acts you are expecting WAY TOO MUCH here mate.
You got less out of the D2 expansion. I expect to see a full 2-3 acts with a lenght similar the D3 main game, if slightly less. Two new classes is possible, but one is more likely. They will likely update the 5 current classes as well. And tons of new death animations.
Just read that Diablo 3 sold 12m copies, will be funny to see how few expansions they sell which this is most likely hinting at. What else is the D3 dev team doing every day? They sure as hell aren't updating the game at least
On August 02 2013 23:37 DwD wrote: Just read that Diablo 3 sold 12m copies, will be funny to see how few expansions they sell which this is most likely hinting at. What else is the D3 dev team doing every day? They sure as hell aren't updating the game at least
I think 9 of 12m have played d2. If d3 didnt have predecessor games (d2 and d1), then probably "only" 5m copies were sold. I fully understand that people like d3 if they didnt play d2 or d1. D3 expansion really need a strength char (it has only barbarian) and i wish a "selffound mode" with the droprate from d2.
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote: Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give.
Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined.
First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar.
Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too.
Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself.
Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute.
If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are?
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying.
Are those numbers actual data or just a guess?
Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good.
On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues.
Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range.
Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that.
I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments.
I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release? Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote: Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give.
Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined.
First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar.
Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too.
Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself.
Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute.
If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are?
On August 02 2013 19:10 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying.
Are those numbers actual data or just a guess?
Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good.
On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues.
Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range.
Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that.
I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments.
I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release? Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
All of the questions you asked are matters of personal opinion. How is anyone supposed to prove those right or wrong?
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote: Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give.
Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined.
First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar.
Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too.
Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself.
Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute.
If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are?
On August 02 2013 19:10 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying.
Are those numbers actual data or just a guess?
Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good.
On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues.
Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range.
Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that.
I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments.
I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release?
The focus of the SC2 bnet is different from WC3. SC2 allows to be in a party, making playing in arranged teams much easier. SC2 downloads the map from the bnet and not the custom game host, making joining games much easier since you dont get kicked for not having the map.
If you watched professional replays, you had a hard time in WC3 because the replay needs the tournament version of the map in the same folder as it was when the game was played. So I needed to create a lot of subdirectories with copies of the map.
If you didn't had the tournament map, you couldnt watch the replay.
In WC3, you could not set a note for a friend.
On August 03 2013 00:08 Mataza wrote: Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
You raised a lot of issues with a short sentence each; I will not write an essay for each, sorry.
The story of SC1 was bad, and got worse in BW imo. The terran campaign in SC1 was full of cliches and poorly executed in my opinion, but at least the campaign was somewhat coherent. The coherency was lost in BW where the UED came into the play as well as some other random figures. No wonder that most of the BW story is not continued in SC2.
Do you really carry an unfulfilled promised of the design team against the game without considering what they were able to deliver as a whole? Mech viable or not – I think that WOLs launch version was more balanced (with 1 supply roaches) that most other RTS after the patches.
I don't see Blizzard vanishing, they talk a lot more directly to the community than before. Remember WC3 or SC1 times? Patches came, often without any explanation. WC3 never got replay watching with friends implemented though SC1 got it (not at launch, but added with a patch.) SC2 did get it implemented.
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote: Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give.
Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined.
First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar.
Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too.
Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself.
Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute.
If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are?
On August 02 2013 19:10 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying.
Are those numbers actual data or just a guess?
Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good.
On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game
How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues.
Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range.
Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that.
I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments.
I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release? Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
All of the questions you asked are matters of personal opinion. How is anyone supposed to prove those right or wrong?
Official statements of David Kim about making mech viable are not opinions. As are the promises of Battlenet 2.0 being the best battlenet Blizzard as of date. Battlenet 2.0 improved a lot, it already has nearly all the features of previous battlenets(and facebook integration).
If you don't know what Blizzard promised, then either you are not remembering or not reading their official press releases.
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote: Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give.
Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined.
First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar.
Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too.
Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself.
Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute.
If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are?
On August 02 2013 19:10 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: [quote] How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying.
Are those numbers actual data or just a guess?
Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good.
On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: [quote] How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"?
Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues.
Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range.
Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that.
I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments.
I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release? Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
All of the questions you asked are matters of personal opinion. How is anyone supposed to prove those right or wrong?
Official statements of David Kim about making mech viable are not opinions. As are the promises of Battlenet 2.0 being the best battlenet Blizzard as of date. Battlenet 2.0 improved a lot, it already has nearly all the features of previous battlenets(and facebook integration).
If you don't know what Blizzard promised, then either you are not remembering or not reading their official press releases.
David Kim said they were going to make factory units "more viable", but did not promise to make "Mech a viable option". People build hellbats and widow mines a lot. The battlenet 2.0 is personal opinion and subject to what you want out of the service. I have no problem with it and it does what I want.
And I remember fine what I was promised and what I wasn't. Attacking people who disagree with you is a poor way to argue.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release?
The focus of the SC2 bnet is different from WC3. SC2 allows to be in a party, making playing in arranged teams much easier. SC2 downloads the map from the bnet and not the custom game host, making joining games much easier since you dont get kicked for not having the map.
If you watched professional replays, you had a hard time in WC3 because the replay needs the tournament version of the map in the same folder as it was when the game was played. So I needed to create a lot of subdirectories with copies of the map.
If you didn't had the tournament map, you couldnt watch the replay.
On August 03 2013 00:08 Mataza wrote: Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
You raised a lot of issues with a short sentence each; I will not write an essay for each, sorry.
The story of SC1 was bad, and got worse in BW imo. The terran campaign in SC1 was full of cliches and poorly executed in my opinion, but at least the campaign was somewhat coherent. The coherency was lost in BW where the UED came into the play as well as some other random figures. No wonder that most of the BW story is not continued in SC2.
Do you really carry an unfulfilled promised of the design team against the game without considering what they were able to deliver as a whole? Mech viable or not – I think that WOLs launch version was more balanced (with 1 supply roaches) that most other RTS after the patches.
I don't see Blizzard vanishing, they talk a lot more directly to the community than before. Remember WC3 or SC1 times? Patches came, often without any explanation. WC3 never got replay watching with friends implemented though SC1 got it (not at launch, but added with a patch.) SC2 did get it implemented.
I would value them talking often to the community much more if they actually had the guts to say no when they mean no and mean yes if they say yes. So far they have always been saying "yes". Obviously they didn't(and couldn't) do everything in the end, but they unfailingly promised the majority of things they were asked.
If anything, they have shown to overdesign, to design with such a big number of people that they ended up changing and reverting changes a lot without getting very far. this is of course just my opinion and not a fact.
And frankly, calling SC1's terran campaign full of cliches while in WoL there is ambient music literally from italowestern movies while Raynor sits alone in a bar looking at a revolver is something I can't take seriously. Mengsk is as deep as a saturday morning cartoon villainin SC2. Literally everything he is shown to do or not do is in some way evil. One might remember that Kerrigan, Raynor, Fenix and Mengsk found common ground and cooperated in the SC:BW campaign for a certain time. If I might remind you the "dark voice", "samir duran/emil narud", zerg-protoss "hybrids" and Stukov are all elements straight out of bw which were continued in sc2.
On August 02 2013 23:07 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm actually looking forward to a d3 expansion, after having removed any rose colored nostalgia glasses. D3 is certainly not better than d2(which is far far far from perfect itself), but it's an adequete enough game on it's own merits. Blizzard's record has always been to release a decent-to-good ranged game, and then release an absolutely amazing expansion that changes and adds huge amounts of content to make it into a great game.
D2:LoD wasn't just 2 new classes and a new act 5. It was also jewels, charms, runes, runewords, crafted items, ethereal items, class-specific items, double the number of set/unique items, 2nd weapon slot, and hirelings that could actually travel from act to act, among other changes. After the expansion was still more to come with synergies being added and uberdiablo for some more endgame things to do, and I guess respec is in now too. D2 was less than half the game it is now before the expansion. It was still good of course, but it didn't become great until later. I could make a similar argument for almost every blizzard title released (wc2, sc, wc3, sc2). What draws me to blizzard games isn't that they're great and get it right the first time around (rarely does one ever), but that they continue to heavily support those games so they can become great.
now you got my hopes up again, shame on you.
After all i have to say that d3 was mediocre. It is not totally bad, but it totally lacks the brilliance that many other blizzard games had/have. Aside from the presentation it could 100% be the mediocre but solid game of an indie-studio. The skill system is mediocre, the story is bad, the presentation is great but a total break with the predecessors, the item system is bad and the drop system mediocre. And the funny part is that the interviews i read from the dev team tell that they know it and are unhappy with it. Which is why i doubt that they will show any content of an expansion, i think they will release the groundbreaking patches they promised first. Maybe i have become an optimist though.
And guys, please stop getting my hopes up for wc4. They would be retards if they released it before lotv, stop making my heart ache.
Anyone ever thought about the possibility that it is something like a diablo-mmo? They said a while ago that they are working on an mmo, and while the d3 story made some fundamental mistakes they really seemed to have worked towards the goal of creating a world (lots more background about the classes, trying to portrait the high heavens etc.). Besides everyone knows that wow was d2 with mmo-mechanics, comic look and warcraft background and skins.
Whether fanboy is an insult is your decision. But you could also go and refute what I wrote after mocking you. After all, distraction is as weak an argument as ad hominem attacks. Isn't WC3's battlenet better in many aspects than the battlenet of SC2? Has it not been lacking some features that brood wars old battlenet already had for a long time after its release?
The focus of the SC2 bnet is different from WC3. SC2 allows to be in a party, making playing in arranged teams much easier. SC2 downloads the map from the bnet and not the custom game host, making joining games much easier since you dont get kicked for not having the map.
If you watched professional replays, you had a hard time in WC3 because the replay needs the tournament version of the map in the same folder as it was when the game was played. So I needed to create a lot of subdirectories with copies of the map.
If you didn't had the tournament map, you couldnt watch the replay.
In WC3, you could not set a note for a friend.
On August 03 2013 00:08 Mataza wrote: Hasn't the tone of the game story become much lighter from brood war to sc2 while the story is notably more inconsistent? Has not the design team of SC2 promised to focus on making mech actually viable outside of TvT for HotS, and just recently said that while this didn't work out, it is now no longer a priority? Mind you, old blizzard games weren't patched nearly as heavily as SC2 and still turned out balanced. There have been changes over the years. A lot of the things that in the eyes of many people made blizzard special are slowly vanishing, bit by bit. People like me are complaining because we wanted them to keep these things, to remain that special company. Or maybe to become that special company again.
But a good memory for the details the things a company promised and then not delivered while telling us that they exceeded their own expectations seems to be a rare thing today.
Oh, and please respond to my whole post if you care to reply, not just the first 3 lines.
You raised a lot of issues with a short sentence each; I will not write an essay for each, sorry.
The story of SC1 was bad, and got worse in BW imo. The terran campaign in SC1 was full of cliches and poorly executed in my opinion, but at least the campaign was somewhat coherent. The coherency was lost in BW where the UED came into the play as well as some other random figures. No wonder that most of the BW story is not continued in SC2.
Do you really carry an unfulfilled promised of the design team against the game without considering what they were able to deliver as a whole? Mech viable or not – I think that WOLs launch version was more balanced (with 1 supply roaches) that most other RTS after the patches.
I don't see Blizzard vanishing, they talk a lot more directly to the community than before. Remember WC3 or SC1 times? Patches came, often without any explanation. WC3 never got replay watching with friends implemented though SC1 got it (not at launch, but added with a patch.) SC2 did get it implemented.
I would value them talking often to the community much more if they actually had the guts to say no when they mean no and mean yes if they say yes. So far they have always been saying "yes". Obviously they didn't(and couldn't) do everything in the end, but they unfailingly promised the majority of things they were asked.
If anything, they have shown to overdesign, to design with such a big number of people that they ended up changing and reverting changes a lot without getting very far. this is of course just my opinion and not a fact.
And frankly, calling SC1's terran campaign full of cliches while in WoL there is ambient music literally from italowestern movies while Raynor sits alone in a bar looking at a revolver is something I can't take seriously. Mengsk is as deep as a saturday morning cartoon villainin SC2. Literally everything he is shown to do or not do is in some way evil. One might remember that Kerrigan, Raynor, Fenix and Mengsk found common ground and cooperated in the SC:BW campaign for a certain time. If I might remind you the "dark voice", "samir duran/emil narud", zerg-protoss "hybrids" and Stukov are all elements straight out of bw which were continued in sc2.
I think there can be no doubt that Blizzard's presentation is heavily influenced by movies. Which considering how movies nowadays work can hardly be good for the story, which is often predictable and without interesting twists and character development besides "a heroes journey". On the other hand SC2 Raynor, while acting totally random, has a lot more character and is a lot easier to imagine than in sc1 where he was pale. He sometimes (like 1 in 10 tries) even manages to come across as a badass. D3 "suffers" from the same "sickness" (curse the guy who wrote Tyrael's dialogue). If they worked on their dialogue writing (please no cheesy dialogues anymore) and develop the story around the characters more the story parts would be pretty good.
Besides Stukov is the only element of the ones you listed that i find good in sc2 and Stukov is supposed to be dead if i remember right.
I really dont mind that they say that they will do that if they see the advantages and dont fulfill it in the end. It means that they have considered it, tried it out and then discarded the idea. Better than not trying it out at all. I really like the fact that they even tell me when and why they stop working on the idea.
EPT
Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the direction the company is going. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
