|
On September 19 2012 00:53 Boonbag wrote:
company creativity kind of died right after d2
Id say it was after WoW. When a company (gaming or other type) become big they have to produce and sell constantly to keep growing (in economy there is a rule that says if you aint growing, you are actually dieing).
For that you need to produce games and sell them. You dont get the luxury of waiting till you got something really good to sale, you simply have to keep selling.
I dont think Blizzard really wanted to make a starcraft 2 in the first place (based on the saying why fix something that aint broken), but money is money after all.
Hell, most amazing games actually come from small studios of 10 guys that work 4 years for a small paycheck. Not a company like blizzard-activision where a yearly negative balance means you (the guy tho decides what games are made) are out of the job.
In other words, welcome to the real world.
|
Yay, now we can flame the correct people!
|
Bobby 'I want to take all the fun out of developing games' Kotick isn't the devil? Thank you blizzard for this revelation.
|
At least they are being a man about it and not trying to hide behind excuses.
|
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?!
qft
I guess i'll just stop buying AAA games altogether. So many good indies and freeware games out there.
|
On September 19 2012 16:39 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 16:24 Monkeyballs25 wrote: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.
I'd thought about that timing aswell, and I did know someone who intended to quit WoW as soon as D3 came out. There's definitely way more than a year's work in the game however, particularly in the sound and visuals. They just don't seem to have had a good vision for the D3 endgame, and I've no idea what's taking the pvp so long.
Mind you I'd still consider all of their games worth the asking price. They just don't widely exceed expectations for a $60 game anymore.
|
Isn't this more of a problem then. If we had qualms with Blizzard's outputs but we used Activision as a scape goat then doesn't this mean that all of our problems are now with Blizzard, the company that we endear so much? I am not happy with the fact that Blizzard has not performed to our expectations recently (Diablo 3 and the WoW moving towards a more casual feel, etc) and now I have no one else to blame but Blizzard.
|
On September 19 2012 20:25 rd 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 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.
Furthermore, the assumed fact, that Brood War would have been balanced is far from the truth.
Just look at modern BW maps (at TLPD) and you'll notice win rates above 60% in some match-ups.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/454_Monte Cristo
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/536_Neo_Electric_Circuit
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/546_Neo_Ground_Zero
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/435_Fortress_SE
|
To be honest I don't believe them.
To me it's not coincidence that Blizzard lost their mojo around the time they were merged with Activision.
I mean, a large part of it is probably coincidence, but I can't blame people for thinking it was all Activision, when in truth as others have said, it's just Blizz is now corporate. They make games soley for profit and not for the love or art of it anymore, as they did when they were run by a smaller group of more dedicated, idealistic people.
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.
Completely agree with this. A reputation is difficult to build and easy to destroy. Blizz has running solely on their legacy and nostalgia for their glory days. Everything they release now is succesful primarily because of the coat tails of earlier, greater games.
|
So, Blizzard is pretty much admitting that the decline of their games is pretty much their own fault. Hopefully when the WoW money finally dries up they will be forced to start taking risks and making great games again.
|
Woah, so Diablo 3 was actually their own doing?
|
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.
If you "design for esports" you either 1) have LAN or 2) have reconnect. People with sense usually recommend both. You cannot call a game designed with esports in mind unless it has one of these things, period.
|
On September 20 2012 00:37 Perscienter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 20:25 rd 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 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. Furthermore, the assumed fact, that Brood War would have been balanced is far from the truth. Just look at modern BW maps (at TLPD) and you'll notice win rates above 60% in some match-ups. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/454_Monte Cristohttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/536_Neo_Electric_Circuithttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/546_Neo_Ground_Zerohttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/435_Fortress_SE
I'm not really knowledgeable about these four maps, so I trust you on this one, anyway please bear in mind that some BW maps may be heavily favored toward some races.
|
On September 20 2012 00:50 iamho wrote:
So, Blizzard is pretty much admitting that the decline of their games is pretty much their own fault. Hopefully when the WoW money finally dries up they will be forced to start taking risks and making great games again.
They already have a fallback plan for WoW. Titan.
|
On September 20 2012 01:52 Al Bundy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 00:37 Perscienter wrote:On September 19 2012 20:25 rd 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:
[quote]
...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. Furthermore, the assumed fact, that Brood War would have been balanced is far from the truth. Just look at modern BW maps (at TLPD) and you'll notice win rates above 60% in some match-ups. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/454_Monte Cristohttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/536_Neo_Electric_Circuithttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/546_Neo_Ground_Zerohttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/435_Fortress_SE I'm not really knowledgeable about these four maps, so I trust you on this one, anyway please bear in mind that some BW maps may be heavily favored toward some races.
I'm not knowledgeable about them either. But even the Koreans never really cared about a perfectly balanced map pool. Balance always depends on the map, too.
|
On September 19 2012 18:50 Nazza wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:20 SupLilSon wrote: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:
[quote]
...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
TBH it's very apparent that SC2 was not designed with E-Sports as its number one priority. No LAN, no Reconnect feature, no clan or in game community support, no in game tournament infrastructure to mention a few concrete factors. Other clues like Blizzard's continual efforts to make the game casual friendly make it way too obvious that Blizzard only cares about E-Sports as long as it puts money in their pockets.
|
All old news. They've already said this about a million times before. Hell, when they first merged they made this a huge point in the initial post.
|
On September 19 2012 20:48 iloveav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:53 Boonbag wrote:
company creativity kind of died right after d2 Id say it was after WoW. When a company (gaming or other type) become big they have to produce and sell constantly to keep growing (in economy there is a rule that says if you aint growing, you are actually dieing). For that you need to produce games and sell them. You dont get the luxury of waiting till you got something really good to sale, you simply have to keep selling. I dont think Blizzard really wanted to make a starcraft 2 in the first place (based on the saying why fix something that aint broken), but money is money after all. Hell, most amazing games actually come from small studios of 10 guys that work 4 years for a small paycheck. Not a company like blizzard-activision where a yearly negative balance means you (the guy tho decides what games are made) are out of the job. In other words, welcome to the real world.
I see what you're saying. But SC2 didn't make them much money, it sold what like 4million copies? It's still a lot, but how long was it in development? What about all the funding they provided GOM with?
It would be better to squeeze in another WoW addon instead of putting bunch of people on SC2. Given pure business in mind, I wouldn't go develop SC2 if I'd be Blizzard.
|
On September 20 2012 03:55 Andr3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 20:48 iloveav wrote:On September 19 2012 00:53 Boonbag wrote:
company creativity kind of died right after d2 Id say it was after WoW. When a company (gaming or other type) become big they have to produce and sell constantly to keep growing (in economy there is a rule that says if you aint growing, you are actually dieing). For that you need to produce games and sell them. You dont get the luxury of waiting till you got something really good to sale, you simply have to keep selling. I dont think Blizzard really wanted to make a starcraft 2 in the first place (based on the saying why fix something that aint broken), but money is money after all. Hell, most amazing games actually come from small studios of 10 guys that work 4 years for a small paycheck. Not a company like blizzard-activision where a yearly negative balance means you (the guy tho decides what games are made) are out of the job. In other words, welcome to the real world. I see what you're saying. But SC2 didn't make them much money, it sold what like 4million copies? It's still a lot, but how long was it in development? What about all the funding they provided GOM with? It would be better to squeeze in another WoW addon instead of putting bunch of people on SC2. Given pure business in mind, I wouldn't go develop SC2 if I'd be Blizzard.
Yeah they should totally shut down their B.net Server for Star2.
|
Wonder how good sc2/d3 would have sold if they had a different name and a different company making them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
