|
On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was.
I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Show nested quote +Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions.
It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll?
[B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure.
HL2 is a much smaller product.
|
Blizzard lost the people who made the games that got them to the top, it's not a surprise they haven't been able to live up to previous titles when their sole purpose is the almighty dollar.
|
what do you expect them to say? "yeah the people who give us money are evil!"
|
On September 19 2012 10:38 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions. It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll? Show nested quote +[B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure. HL2 is a much smaller product.
What is your point? They released an unfinished product.
|
On September 19 2012 10:40 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:38 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions. It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll? [B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure. HL2 is a much smaller product. What is your point? They released an unfinished product.
My point is that HL2 and D3 have little in common in what kind of game was being developed -- or even just what the goal was being set for either game. If you're trying to argue that D3 was an unfinished product despite 10 years of anticipation, then why tack on a comparison that doesn't really add any credence to a statement when it's for the most part irrelevant.
|
On September 19 2012 10:19 Epishade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. Idk why you felt the need to sign up to post something like this. It's moronic saying that everyone's opinions are stupid and always the same. There have already been dissenting opinions in this thread. Generally there are 2 sides to an argument. So should we only let 2 people post each side of the argument and then close the thread to "stop spamming"? Learn how a forum works. How ridiculous.
He is very right about a lot of opinions being biased by how low or high skilled you are at a specific game.
|
*Reads Op post*
*Expects general fail in thread*
*Was not disappointed*
Topic of Blizzard sure does bring out the worst in people. Granted, it is due to the passion people have for the games and history.
|
On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work.
He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong.
|
Activision is also not that bad.
They made Battlezone and Dark Reign in the 90s. They published Doom and Quake. They really were innovative. Activision is not Call of Duty.
|
On September 19 2012 00:39 stk01001 wrote:
Regardless of wether Activision influences Blizzard or not, it's obvious Blizzard is now concentrating much more on profitability and making money as oppose to game quality. Diablo 3 RMAH is probably the best example of this, and just in general it seems most of their decisions are now driven by "what is going to make our game the most appealing to the most people" as oppose to "what's best for the game itself". I mean it's pretty obvious they are getting pressure from Activision to increase the bottom line. Not really blaming them, they are a business and their main goal at the end of the day is to make money, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor behind everything. They need to balance out and be careful not to sacrifice too much game quality just to make profits.
The RMAH was obviously an attempt to curtail selling of gold and items via 3rd party sites and keep it in control of blizzard. No need for conspiracies about profit making needed, yes they make money from it and they have a right to. Why should a 3rd party be able to sell in game items and make money from it without paying blizzard? You can't do it in virtually any other medium than gaming. Those 3rd party sites also are the epicenter of hacking, stealing accounts, virus' and malware... taking away business from them benefits gamers the world over in addition to benefiting blizzard.
I swear everyone who pulls this crap out of their ass has no idea how the real world works or is just so dumb that they can't understand that controlling your own product is always preferable to someone else doing so, for both the company and the customers.
|
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
hahaah yup. first page comment, I wasn't disappointed.
|
On September 19 2012 11:05 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong.
First of all it's me you're referring to, and no, you did not. They released two different games on their new engine in one package. HL2 =/= CSS. Like, you're actually trying to compare them to D3 as if they're entirely relevant at all within the scopes of their genre and the goals of gameplay that were intended. All you're doing is driving this point off the cliff.
It's like asking why Portal 2 isn't updated with as much content as WoW, then when told the obvious reason why, immediately jumping to the conclusion Portal 2 failed where WoW succeeded.
|
On September 19 2012 11:08 Perscienter wrote:
Activision is also not that bad.
They made Battlezone and Dark Reign in the 90s. They published Doom and Quake. They really were innovative. Activision is not Call of Duty.
WASNT They are now. They haven't made shit else but call of dollars.
|
On September 19 2012 09:42 SayGen wrote:
People so mad over D3.
Not every game is going to be an outstanding success or a legacy title.
Name one AAA game company that hasn't disapointed its fans......
point set match.
I dunno Valve seems to be doing pretty good still.
I think the biggest thing is that when Valve has something that's broken...say like early Steam...THEY FIX IT.
Bnet 0.2 still has pages and pages of issues and is still inferior to Bnet 1.0 is most meaninful ways. That's the issue at hand.
|
On September 19 2012 11:38 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:42 SayGen wrote:
People so mad over D3.
Not every game is going to be an outstanding success or a legacy title.
Name one AAA game company that hasn't disapointed its fans......
point set match. I dunno Valve seems to be doing pretty good still. I think the biggest thing is that when Valve has something that's broken...say like early Steam...THEY FIX IT. Bnet 0.2 still has pages and pages of issues and is still inferior to Bnet 1.0 is most meaninful ways. That's the issue at hand.
Early Steam was a mess. Years went by before my friends list worked consistently. The thing is no one really cared that much because the games were amazing.
|
On September 19 2012 10:52 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:19 Epishade wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. Idk why you felt the need to sign up to post something like this. It's moronic saying that everyone's opinions are stupid and always the same. There have already been dissenting opinions in this thread. Generally there are 2 sides to an argument. So should we only let 2 people post each side of the argument and then close the thread to "stop spamming"? Learn how a forum works. How ridiculous. He is very right about a lot of opinions being biased by how low or high skilled you are at a specific game.
I wouldn't try to make the argument that many opinions aren't biased, because generally that's what opinions are. Not to mention there is no minimum skill requirement for voicing opinions. That being said, having a high skill level at a game does not guarantee an unbiased opinion (nor should it). But just because an opinion is biased, which most opinions probably are, doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that you shouldn't voice it.
|
lolol there goes blizzards only excuse. used to be activisions fault. now its all on you, blizzard!
|
On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:05 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong. First of all it's me you're referring to, and no, you did not. They released two different games on their new engine in one package. HL2 =/= CSS. Like, you're actually trying to compare them to D3 as if they're entirely relevant at all within the scopes of their genre and the goals of gameplay that were intended. All you're doing is driving this point off the cliff. It's like asking why Portal 2 isn't updated with as much content as WoW, then when told the obvious reason why, immediately jumping to the conclusion Portal 2 failed where WoW succeeded.
Well wasn't HL2 death match part of the game? That's online. And Half-life.
I'm not comparing D3 to Valve games, heck, I was just saying that HL2 having no online component is wrong. I don't care to compare Valve to Blizzard. I think Valve makes better games these days, that's all. They're more consistent with quality products than Blizzard IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
