|
On September 19 2012 00:36 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content. So true. If it isn't Activision. How in gods name do they explain Diablo 3? Worst game I ever played.
Then you don't play many games. Seriously if you think D3 is the worst game you have ever played you really need to go play more games.
Honestly i found D3 fun for a 1 time run through, it's not a game I could play over and over but it wasn't bad. Specially if I compare it to some other games I have played that were just god awful in not only the game itself, but bugs/glitches/etc.
|
On September 19 2012 13:31 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:36 Benjamin99 wrote:On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content. So true. If it isn't Activision. How in gods name do they explain Diablo 3? Worst game I ever played. Then you don't play many games. Seriously if you think D3 is the worst game you have ever played you really need to go play more games. Honestly i found D3 fun for a 1 time run through, it's not a game I could play over and over but it wasn't bad. Specially if I compare it to some other games I have played that were just god awful in not only the game itself, but bugs/glitches/etc.
D3 is not the worst game at all, it's just pitiful in comparison to our expectations.That's why people hate it and will use hyperboles to express it.
There are games out there that suck horribly but it's not so sad because very few people buy them.
D3 got way more sales than it deserve due to its predecessor.
|
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.
Posting an opinion is not spamming. Incidentally, pretty ironic that you complain about people posting their opinions, and then go on to post yours about how everybody else's are stupid, bias (sic), etc. You don't seem to understand what an opinion is, either. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong? What does that even mean?
|
On September 19 2012 13:40 GolemMadness 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. Posting an opinion is not spamming. Incidentally, pretty ironic that you complain about people posting their opinions, and then go on to post yours about how everybody else's are stupid, bias (sic), etc. You don't seem to understand what an opinion is, either. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong? What does that even mean?
It's pretty amusing when people say that opinions are not worth discussing because they're not objective. Ugh, why? x_x
|
On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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.
I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve.
|
On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve.
That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created.
|
On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created.
I understand esports has been around for longer than sc2, but I'd argue it's probably the first game that was designed with that in mind. Also most of the stuff that was "clearly broken" as you say, really wasn't, it was just that everyone was bad at the game early on.
|
On September 19 2012 13:57 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created. I understand esports has been around for longer than sc2, but I'd argue it's probably the first game that was designed with that in mind. Also most of the stuff that was "clearly broken" as you say, really wasn't, it was just that everyone was bad at the game early on.
SC2 clearly wasn't designed completely for Esports... how did you ever get that idea??
|
On September 19 2012 13:57 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created. I understand esports has been around for longer than sc2, but I'd argue it's probably the first game that was designed with that in mind. Also most of the stuff that was "clearly broken" as you say, really wasn't, it was just that everyone was bad at the game early on.
Starcraft 2 was designed to make money.
|
Blizz also said War3 was designed for competitive play. The last two posts are right. If SC2 were "for esports" it would have lan
|
About 10 years ago, Blizzard decided to throw away brand equity for short term profitability. Even SC2 which is still a decent game is nowhere as good as it's predecessor. They made money with the release of Diablo 3, but I highly doubt people will be waiting for Diablo 4.. Blizzard will go through a restructuration in the next decade, at most.
|
On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created.
The game is pretty much balanced, it's the whole design of the game that is flawed. Anyone who has watched Pro Brood War even for just a year would realize that SC2 is a lesser game. It has nowhere the depth, nor the execution of BW. The focus is now on build orders, not mechanics. A-moving a maxed out army at the 11 minute mark is NOT an interesting E-sport.
|
United States5049 Posts
On September 19 2012 00:52 Probe1 wrote:
Why in gods name would you admit that you're a terrible game designer when the public believes its not your fault?!
seems like a dumb business decision to me lolol
|
On September 19 2012 16:07 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created. The game is pretty much balanced, it's the whole design of the game that is flawed. Anyone who has watched Pro Brood War even for just a year would realize that SC2 is a lesser game. It has nowhere the depth, nor the execution of BW. The focus is now on build orders, not mechanics. A-moving a maxed out army at the 11 minute mark is NOT an interesting E-sport.
This!
I really do not like blizzards unit design either, they come up with a "cool" idea ( = gimmicky) and force it into an RTS.
|
On September 19 2012 16:04 Patate wrote:
About 10 years ago, Blizzard decided to throw away brand equity for short term profitability. Even SC2 which is still a decent game is nowhere as good as it's predecessor. They made money with the release of Diablo 3, but I highly doubt people will be waiting for Diablo 4.. Blizzard will go through a restructuration in the next decade, at most.
I don't think any company decides to spend 10 years making a bad game and releasing it on the back of its more popular predecessor. If they just wanted to cash in on D2's success they could have released the game ages ago. I think they've just lost whatever creative spark let them make really great games in the first place.
|
On September 19 2012 16:17 KaiserJohan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 16:07 Patate wrote:On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created. The game is pretty much balanced, it's the whole design of the game that is flawed. Anyone who has watched Pro Brood War even for just a year would realize that SC2 is a lesser game. It has nowhere the depth, nor the execution of BW. The focus is now on build orders, not mechanics. A-moving a maxed out army at the 11 minute mark is NOT an interesting E-sport. This! I really do not like blizzards unit design either, they come up with a "cool" idea ( = gimmicky) and force it into an RTS.
Worst thing has to be warpgate tech. What better way to destroy a defender's advantage than this? Just look at PvP.. twice the gimmick. The only saving grace of this retarded matchup is the ramp (look at a PvP on taldarim altar if you don't believe me).
The whole principle of being able to reinforce your army from any pylon has got to be the worst idea.. worst than colossus, worst than roach or marauder. How to destroy the whole aspect of the defender's advantage based on the map rush distance? no wonder Protoss wins come from stupid gimmicky timings (and I play toss... imagine how OP they would be if gateway units were good).
SC2 TvZ is fine (lacks lurkers though) and dynamic enough, TvT and ZvZ are even better than their BW counterparts (bio being viable but maybe a little too strong, fog of war tank dynamics being better than in BW) ( ZvZ being something else than ling mutas).
Protoss really is the broken thing in this game (along with a supply limit being too low, macro speed being too fast, and bases giving too much income at saturation). Other than that, 2012 SC2 is an alright game, but the community really helped Blizzard on this because 2010 SC2 was painful.. the maps and balance were straight up terrible).
Diablo 3 and the new WoW are the real shit projects of Blizzard though. Does anyone still play Diablo 3?
Edit: I forgot to mention the SC2 singleplayer. Personally I liked the missions, but I didn't care about the story at all. Maybe it's an age thing (since I was 11 years older than in Vanilla SC), but I couldn't give a single f*** about Raynor, Kerrigan, or all the WoW-inspired stupid characters on that ship.
|
On September 19 2012 16:24 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 16:04 Patate wrote:
About 10 years ago, Blizzard decided to throw away brand equity for short term profitability. Even SC2 which is still a decent game is nowhere as good as it's predecessor. They made money with the release of Diablo 3, but I highly doubt people will be waiting for Diablo 4.. Blizzard will go through a restructuration in the next decade, at most. I don't think any company decides to spend 10 years making a bad game and releasing it on the back of its more popular predecessor. If they just wanted to cash in on D2's success they could have released the game ages ago. I think they've just lost whatever creative spark let them make really great games in the first place.
No, I think releasing D3 early would have lowered WoW's subscriptions, so they actually waited for the profitable MMORPG to die a little by itself before releasing D3. This was all about product planning. I don't think they actually took more than a year to create that mess: when you build a game around a RMAH, you get shit.
Every corporations with momentum and halo get that moment where the passioned and talented people leave, and get replaced by greedy ones who will cash-in on all that reputation. Toyota has been selling cars strictly on reputation for the past 5 to 10 years, while Apple has been selling overpriced gadgets because of the initial halo caused by the original iPod. Blizzard is doing the same.
|
On September 19 2012 14:20 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:57 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created. I understand esports has been around for longer than sc2, but I'd argue it's probably the first game that was designed with that in mind. Also most of the stuff that was "clearly broken" as you say, really wasn't, it was just that everyone was bad at the game early on. SC2 clearly wasn't designed completely for Esports... how did you ever get that idea??
We'll never be able to tell the difference tbh. Even if SC2 was meant to be designed for esports, the end result is hard to justify.
Let's suppose that HotS is designed for esports, because by now Blizzard has seen how much tournaments and MLG and all that stuff can be profitable. Even then, Blizzard's idea of a good idea is really obscure, so much that even though they claim to be 99%* done, they ended up scrapping the idea for one of their units (ouch). Thus, you can go into designing a game with intentions for an esports scene, and come out with a product that is detrimental to it. Conversely, you can go into designing a game with no intentions for anything except to sell well, and it supports 12 years of professional gaming in South Korea.
* http://www.gamespot.com/news/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-99-done-6383007
|
On September 19 2012 13:49 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:45 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 13:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'd make the argument that Valve also aren't quite as ambitious as Blizzard though. It's obvious the RMAH didn't quite fly over as well as it could/should have, but you have to admit that was one hell of ballsy attempt at harnessing gold farming and turning it into a positive for everyone. And then with Starcraft 2, they built it from the ground up with the goal of creating a full blown esport, that goes far beyond what any other company was doing at the time including Valve. That "building sc2 for esports" is bullshit and they know it. If the game was even remotely balanced people would still manage to make it an esport because most of the other rts titles are even worse. Hell, for part of the games lifespan there were things that were clearly broken that were addressed much later. Also, esports has been around. Its not something that sc2 suddenly created.
?_? The game was remotely balanced throughout the entire release. Infact, it was fairly well balanced for the most part. Probably didn't need nearly as many balance patches if Blizzard were to allow the metagame to develop. No need to make over the top exaggerations.
|
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.
Ask competitive counter-strike players about Counter-strike Source. Or Half Life: episode 2. Or the insanely fast sequel to Left 4 dead. Valve isn't perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
