|
On September 20 2012 04:50 Klowney wrote:
Wonder how good sc2/d3 would have sold if they had a different name and a different company making them.
It would have been better. They wouldn`t take this long to release them.
|
On September 20 2012 04:54 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:50 Klowney wrote:
Wonder how good sc2/d3 would have sold if they had a different name and a different company making them. It would have been better. They wouldn`t take this long to release them.
That doesn't affect sales too negatively. On the other hand, being sequels to some of the most liked games ever does generate millions of sales.
So no, I don't think so.
|
Italy12248 Posts
Bobby Kotick is still an asshole though.
Besides, you can't expect anyone to be at the top of whatever it is they do forever. Bands will always have bad albums, developers will always have bad games, bonjwas eventually fall off retire...simply put, Blizzard's glory days are pretty much done. They are still pretty good, but nowhere near what it was 10 years ago.
|
On September 20 2012 07:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On September 20 2012 04:50 Klowney wrote:
Wonder how good sc2/d3 would have sold if they had a different name and a different company making them. It would have been better. They wouldn`t take this long to release them. That doesn't affect sales too negatively. On the other hand, being sequels to some of the most liked games ever does generate millions of sales. So no, I don't think so.
Oh boy where did you lose your sarcasm-o-meter.
|
On September 20 2012 07:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:10 Djzapz wrote:On September 20 2012 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On September 20 2012 04:50 Klowney wrote:
Wonder how good sc2/d3 would have sold if they had a different name and a different company making them. It would have been better. They wouldn`t take this long to release them. That doesn't affect sales too negatively. On the other hand, being sequels to some of the most liked games ever does generate millions of sales. So no, I don't think so. Oh boy where did you lose your sarcasm-o-meter.
If it's not funny, I assume the person's a bit dumb. Sorry.
I started thinking like that when I realized that a lot of people actually aren't too intelligent and they actually believe shit like that.
|
On September 20 2012 03:44 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 18:50 Nazza wrote: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:
[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. 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.
LAN was left out because of e-sport. Blizzard didn't want third-party-tournaments to prevail but wanted to be in control of every match. That's only possible without LAN function.
Clan and in-game community? The people who can make a living out of it, play 1vs1. The ping is also very low.
They definitely had e-sport in mind, though they made mistakes.
|
On September 20 2012 09:46 Perscienter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 03:44 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 18:50 Nazza wrote: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:
[quote]
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. LAN was left out because of e-sport. Blizzard didn't want third-party-tournaments to prevail but wanted to be in control of every match. That's only possible without LAN function.Clan and in-game community? The people who can make a living out of it, play 1vs1. The ping is also very low. They definitely had e-sport in mind, though they made mistakes.
Most stupidest thing I have ever heard regarding the growth of esport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
