|
We all know blizzard makes successful games based on sales, this is very easy to understand.
But they dont make successful games based on gameplay. Thats what i truly think.
If your argument is that sales=good games then fine its an argument.
But at the same time we all know that you dont need to make a good product for it to sale well.
Heartstone, good? No, with that much RNG involved it cant be a good gameplay. Fun? Sure.
If i played table tennis irl, and it had a 20% chance to go in superspeed(the ball) i would not play that sport.
I would call table tennis garbage. Now i call it a good sport.
|
hearthstone started out as a really awesome game. juts not a fan of the direction they took it.
diablo 3 and sc2 started out completely awful and had to try to fix all the problems later
|
the majority of D3's sales occurred more than 8 months after it was initially released. Its price remained high unlike thte 2012 Borderlands2 which has seen lots of copies sold due to going on sale for $5. and Borderlands2 is a good game that had good long term success. Just that compared to Diablo3 it was not nearly as long term. They still want $20 for the 2012 D3.
On November 04 2016 23:59 Foxxan wrote:
We all know blizzard makes successful games based on sales, this is very easy to understand.
But they dont make successful games based on gameplay. Thats what i truly think.
If your argument is that sales=good games then fine its an argument.
But at the same time we all know that you dont need to make a good product for it to sale well.
Heartstone, good? No, with that much RNG involved it cant be a good gameplay. Fun? Sure.
If i played table tennis irl, and it had a 20% chance to go in superspeed(the ball) i would not play that sport.
I would call table tennis garbage. Now i call it a good sport.
long term success is impossible when you are selling crap. Example: No Man's Sky.
so, Blizzard's games all suck.. and they've been sucking for 7+ years .. since the ATVI merger. The customer has figured this all out and knows all their games suck.
That's why people spent $0.74 Billion last quarter on Blizzard's games... because every one has known for 7 years all their games are bad.
on a serious note, long term engagement is objective proof of quality.
Stuff like Super Tecmo Bowl, NHL '94, and MULE are all examples. Now there are lots of people who hate these games and can go on and on about how "fundamentally flawed" they are. So long as a vibrant, active community continues to evolve the meta... the people who hate these games don't matter.
|
Good sales mean that a lot of people don't share some posters' opinion of bad gameplay. Being vocal doesn't make a minority into a majority.
People who are happy with a game generally don't post a lot. They play the game, get what they want out of it, then move on. The excessive focus on "endgame" is one of the things that is wrong with videogames nowadays. The tiny minority that is happy with a grind wants every sequel to keep that grind even if the vast, vast majority of the playerbase doesn't care about that grind.
|
i wish Borderlands2 had a season mode the way Diablo3 does. i'm not alone. A guy handmade a google spreadsheet and people voluntarily play in a Borderlands2 season. Blizz has done an awesome job keeping players engaged long term in D3.
|
On November 05 2016 00:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the majority of D3's sales occurred more than 8 months after it was initially released. Its price remained high unlike thte 2012 Borderlands2 which has seen lots of copies sold due to going on sale for $5. and Borderlands2 is a good game that had good long term success. Just that compared to Diablo3 it was not nearly as long term. They still want $20 for the 2012 D3. Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 23:59 Foxxan wrote:
We all know blizzard makes successful games based on sales, this is very easy to understand.
But they dont make successful games based on gameplay. Thats what i truly think.
If your argument is that sales=good games then fine its an argument.
But at the same time we all know that you dont need to make a good product for it to sale well.
Heartstone, good? No, with that much RNG involved it cant be a good gameplay. Fun? Sure.
If i played table tennis irl, and it had a 20% chance to go in superspeed(the ball) i would not play that sport.
I would call table tennis garbage. Now i call it a good sport.
long term success is impossible when you are selling crap. Example: No Man's Sky. so, Blizzard's games all suck.. and they've been sucking for 7+ years .. since the ATVI merger. The customer has figured this all out and knows all their games suck. That's why people spent $0.74 Billion last quarter on Blizzard's games... because every one has known for 7 years all their games are bad. on a serious note, long term engagement is objective proof of quality. Stuff like Super Tecmo Bowl, NHL '94, and MULE are all examples. Now there are lots of people who hate these games and can go on and on about how "fundamentally flawed" they are. So long as a vibrant, active community continues to evolve the meta... the people who hate these games don't matter.
Why do you repeat yourself? Nothing new to add?
Blizzard is a big name and has been for many years, their success of sales isnt an indication that their games have good gameplay.
You may think they have great gameplay, the greatest gameplay of all time, the majority might think so as well.
You know what? You dont know that, neither do I.
All we know is that
1. Blizzard as a company is a very big name in the computer game business.
2. Blizzard has some of the most popular names of games(diablo, sc, wc) and we all know for a fact that a big name can sell big time.
And let me get this straight, in case you havent thought about it. If a company makes a game which is the best in the genre. Does that automatically make it a good game? Answer: No.
Doesnt matter what you say here, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN ITS A GOOD GAME.
I considder sc2, heartstone, wow and diablo 3 bad games. All of them.
The majority might think otherwise, you might think otherwise but think about it if you played table tennis you win a ball, 1-0. But for that number to actually be 1-0 you have to grind, you have to run a marathon and after you have done that, its finally 1-0.
If you didnt run that marathon it would be 0-0.
If you have a 40% chance to make a critical strike so it goes into a superspeed, then no thats not a good or fun sport.
People who are happy with a game generally don't post a lot
People who are unhappy about a game usually dont post either. They move on.
The thing is, we dont know these kinds of stuff. In fact, the majory just moves on if they find the game bad. Thats what i think.
on a serious note, long term engagement is objective proof of quality.
what a load of bollocks.
Long term engagement can mean many things, including having a piss poor product that makes lots of money. So therefore, being in it for the money.
|
On November 05 2016 00:50 Foxxan wrote:
Why do you repeat yourself? Nothing new to add?
i added stuff. you didn't fully read the post. i guess you're one of those NHL '93 guys that hates NHL'94. Its 23 years later and the complaining continues. Engagement with NHL'94 is like 1000X what it is for NHL '93 but the NHL '93 guys continue to insist that the "sheep" playing NHL '94 don't know what a "truly good hockey game is". 
"and every where that mary went.. the lamb was sure to go..."
rather than cryptic parallels i'll comment directly about Diablo3 now:
by every metric D3 released in May 2012 and Reaper of Souls released in March 2014 are among the best long term successes in the years they were released. Very few games are as vibrant and active.
here is what the competition said about D3.
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/08/31/pax-2015-torchlight-3-isnt-happening-because-dev-is-burnt-out
|
What is even being discussed here?
|
On November 05 2016 01:06 Duka08 wrote:
What is even being discussed here?
daed game
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
On November 05 2016 00:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 00:50 Foxxan wrote:
Why do you repeat yourself? Nothing new to add?
i added stuff. you didn't fully read the post. i guess you're one of those NHL '93 guys that hates NHL'94. Its 23 years later and the complaining continues.
I feel like you go into every game thread you can to see if you can reference how great blizzard is (mostly through citing revenue) or just to bring up your favorite games (borderlands, nhl 94, and tecmo bowl) no matter how off topic it goes.
On the topic of Diablo dying, yep it's completely dead. I played a ton of it and the most recent seasons have added nothing to the game and so the players aren't coming back. There's no one in chat channels that doesn't already live on the game and most clans have <5 people who even get on to make a new seasonal character. D2 has had more twitch viewers than D3 for a while now. Unless there's massive changes (and I mean almost complete rework of skills, paragon, itemization, drops, and more not to mention new classes/zones/level cap) I can't see an xpac going over well. Will it get sales? Sure it will. But not anywhere close to the scale of RoS and the wave won't last as long.
|
when i discuss long term success i pick games that are long term successes. how much more long term can you get than a 25 year old game. i don't play Super Tecmo Bowl. I can however infer it is a good game just based on its long term reception, success , and engagement levels 25 years after its release. long term engagement is objective proof of quality.
2 giant companies made 2 rts games in 2010.
C&C4 was released in March 2010. WoL in July 2010. the WoL player base is more than 100X larger than the C&C4 player base. We don't need to get into game mechanics, graphics, or balance. WoL > C&C4 due to its long term engagement #s.
if a happy community is playing any game years after release that is objective proof of its quality... it does not matter that some group hates the game. people have been saying Blizzard has produced nothing but crap since the formation of ATVI in 2008. Its 7 years later and some how.. some way.. people are still buying their games.
D3's long term success is only possible due to it being a quality product.
|
That goes back to my old argument, Wol might be the best RTS game in the genre and people find it decent so they play it.
Its not proof the game is good, it might be proof its one if not the best in the genre. Still it does not have to tell anything if they find it good.
Diablo 2 -> diablo 3 then. Diablo was hugely successful for its time. Or maybe its outdated? Hard to say since it was so successful back then...
|
On November 05 2016 01:19 Foxxan wrote:
Who cares about that bloody tecmo bowl.
exactly what i'm saying : the tecmo bowl people hate super tecmo bowl.
there is a group of hard core D2 people who hate D3 and go on and on and on about it.
a portion of the fans of the previous iteration hate the latest sequel. that does not mean the sequel is bad. if some people keep playing the sequel years later and enjoy the game.. that's what matters.
same shit. different decade. this pattern of consumer behaviour has existed for decades.
Re: Super Tecmo Bowl
i'll be in wisconsin April 8th and i start "training" in January.
http://www.tecmomadison.com/
|
So you are saying you hate the game? Then why the hell do you bring it up all the time then?
I never said i hated it, and you know that, but since you compete in it, you probably call yourself a tecmo bowl people, and hate it. Makes little sense but w.e
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'd be ok with a d4 mmo. warcraft is stale as fk anyway
|
On November 05 2016 01:19 Foxxan wrote:
That goes back to my old argument, Wol might be the best RTS game in the genre and people find it decent so they play it.
Its not proof the game is good, it might be proof its one if not the best in the genre. Still it does not have to tell anything if they find it good.
Then what is good? How do you define it?
|
as far as the claim that Borderlands is "off topic".
Borderlands developers state many times that the vision for Borderlands is a game that is the merger of Diablo mechanics from the Halo FPS perspective. Many in the Borderlands community wish the Borderlands game had as many mechanics for long term play that Diablo has. The Borderlands hardcore players watch Diablo's latest developments and scream for the same thing in Borderlands. Many in the Borderlands community (including me) wishes the game had the support Diablo has.
the D3 community doesn't know how good they've got it.
|
I don't quite get the hate towards Diablo 3 but I can see that it's missing some magic that Diablo 2 had.
But i also appreciate they didn't just copy paste Diablo 2 and update graphics and call it a new game.
The new updates maps and items are especially awesome even though I ain't a hardcore player, they kept making me coming back every once a while
|
Canada8158 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
as far as the claim that Borderlands is "off topic".
Borderlands developers state many times that the vision for Borderlands is a game that is the merger of Diablo mechanics from the Halo FPS perspective. Many in the Borderlands community wish the Borderlands game had as many mechanics for long term play that Diablo has. The Borderlands hardcore players watch Diablo's latest developments and scream for the same thing in Borderlands. Many in the Borderlands community (including me) wishes the game had the support Diablo has.
the D3 community doesn't know how good they've got it.
I disagree, I think Diablo has become utter trash now
|
On November 05 2016 01:38 Duka08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 01:19 Foxxan wrote:
That goes back to my old argument, Wol might be the best RTS game in the genre and people find it decent so they play it.
Its not proof the game is good, it might be proof its one if not the best in the genre. Still it does not have to tell anything if they find it good. Then what is good? How do you define it?
Both having power. Good interaction for both ways. Interesting micro=None-script gameplay, improvisation in combat, reaction time-accuracy-decision making-outmaneover.
Meaningful choices, no "waste" of time. Game starting immediately.
Imagine if a rts game didnt revolve around timings as much. Instead, both races can attack at the same time so you fight for map, try to outmaneover opponent with INTERESTING micro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
