EPTBlizzard has always taken a genre and made the best, most polished game for it. This seems to be no exception. It has role-based elements, MOBA elements, a fun atmosphere, and Blizzard's fit-and-finish.
This gon b gud.
General Discussion - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Games |
Please be advised: We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable. After that we will require new threads to discuss topics. Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread. Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
Blizzard has always taken a genre and made the best, most polished game for it. This seems to be no exception. It has role-based elements, MOBA elements, a fun atmosphere, and Blizzard's fit-and-finish. This gon b gud. | ||
|
Miragee
8676 Posts
On November 10 2014 22:49 Plansix wrote: Blizzard has specifically stated they are trying to get away from that and focus on smaller, shorter term projects. They said this after release hearthstone to rousing success. So I wouldn't be shocked if overwatch comes quickly. And it's only logical. Why would you spend tons of money on a years long development if you can just create a small game or multiple small games with a handful of people in a shorter time and sack in shit tons of money instead? Guess us players are on the suffering side again. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On November 11 2014 00:25 Miragee wrote: And it's only logical. Why would you spend tons of money on a years long development if you can just create a small game or multiple small games with a handful of people in a shorter time and sack in shit tons of money instead? Guess us players are on the suffering side again. I think blizz just realized that what they release makes no difference at all, so long as they release something people will fall over themselves trying to give blizz more money  Regardless, with the "games as a service" model increasingly dominating the industry (for good reason), it DOES make sense to release a game almost as soon as it's playable at least to a subset of your audience in order to both start the feedback loop asap as well as to start revenue generation. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:14 Tenks wrote: I wonder if the absolute failure of Diablo3 also helped with this. They released a smaller version of the game and never got large amounts of feedback on the abysmal end-game. Pretty sure Diablo 3 was a commercial success and your assessment of it as an "absolute failure" is purely a reflection of your expectations, realistic or unrealistic, not being met. I was also bummed with what Diablo 3 turned out to be, but in no way was it an absolute failure. | ||
|
KillerSOS
United States4207 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:18 ZasZ. wrote: Pretty sure Diablo 3 was a commercial success and your assessment of it as an "absolute failure" is purely a reflection of your expectations, realistic or unrealistic, not being met. I was also bummed with what Diablo 3 turned out to be, but in no way was it an absolute failure. Even most casual players weren't too happy with how standard D3 went. But they took the feedback and made a fantastic X-pack. I enjoy the new interactive method for development of multiplayer games. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:18 ZasZ. wrote: Pretty sure Diablo 3 was a commercial success and your assessment of it as an "absolute failure" is purely a reflection of your expectations, realistic or unrealistic, not being met. I was also bummed with what Diablo 3 turned out to be, but in no way was it an absolute failure. Diablo 3 had done well for them and they improved it with the removal of the AH(which will go down as the dumbest idea that must have sounded great on paper). The console versions also done very well due to their ability to have couch co-op(which is pretty dope). But people are not wrong if they think that D3's initial reception by the community at large was a huge wake up call for Blizzard. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:18 ZasZ. wrote: Pretty sure Diablo 3 was a commercial success and your assessment of it as an "absolute failure" is purely a reflection of your expectations, realistic or unrealistic, not being met. I was also bummed with what Diablo 3 turned out to be, but in no way was it an absolute failure. It sold completely on the legacy of Diablo 2. I know more than a few people who are older now and were looking forward to Diablo3 and after playing it are completely turned off the franchise. I don't know what RoS's sale numbers looked like compared to vanilla but of the people I know in real life who purchased Diablo 3 I'm the only one who bought RoS. Blizzard generally is concerned about public perception and long term playability of their games. They don't seem to enjoy dropping a game on the public, cashing in and cutting support. They know they have a standard to uphold. At the moment with the state Diablo3 came out in I don't know how many of these people who blindly purchased the game because of Diablo2 would actually blindly purchase Diablo4. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:49 SKC wrote: RoS probally still outsold Heart of the Swarm by a decent margin. The report is that the franchise has sold 20 million across all platforms(at it was 8 million on PC when it initially came out), so yes. I think SC2 has sold 1/4 of that. I am sure Overwatch will be the new and improved Blizzard that we have been seeing in the last two or so years. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32748 Posts
| ||
peanuts
United States1225 Posts
- Movement feels really smooth already. Nothing is clunky, even slow characters move very deliberately and you always feel very in control. It's not at the level of a twitchy arena shooter, but it felt a bit more finessed than TF2. - All of the characters seem to be fun in unique ways. Movement options, how you have to play the map, how aggressive you can be. - The game seems to be relatively balanced(?). Obviously way too early to call, but she said that nothing felt ridiculously UP or OP on first glance, and most people she talked to had similar sentiments. - Maps are really fun. Lots of verticality! Rooftops, ledges, windows, there's no such thing as unused space. Coming from a Quake background, that makes me so excited. :D | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
johnbongham
451 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:22 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm curious, you didn't like TF2's movement system? Who did? (out of those who have played a version of TF prior to TF2) TF2 completely ruined the movement of TF. Its not even recognizable and the main reason why I never got into it despite being a huge TF fan. For Example: | ||
|
peanuts
United States1225 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:22 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm curious, you didn't like TF2's movement system? Not a huge fan. It's fine, I'm not begging Valve to change it, but it just feels... off? Like, I feel like I don't have 100% control of my character. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
@peanuts if you say so. I'll admit I have less experience with the older games in the FPS genre overall. | ||
| ||
