EPTShame they've fallen so far.
Blizzard's Comments on Activison - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FractalsOnFire
Australia1756 Posts
Shame they've fallen so far. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote: Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content. Content you spend many hours of your life on. | ||
|
FakeDeath
Malaysia6060 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
| ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
blizzard takes the high road and says they don't tell us what to do, we make our own decisions, aka manning up, and get called terrible. just stop buying their products then. I'm just so tired of the amount of blizzard hate because every game they put out hasn't been 100% catered to the individual. I liked d3, i played it a lot, i still like it, and i think they're moving in the right direction. NO PRODUCT blizzard has released came out flawless at launch, what made blizzard good was that they maintained, updated, and listened to player feedback and fixed issues with their games along the way. WoW is a different beast but it's still the predominant MMO in the world so they face issues that others don't have. SCBW, War3, TFT, D2/D2X all had their fair share of issues that got smoothed out over time/patches. So people expecting games to launch flawlessly are kidding themselves. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but teh comments of 'lol so they're just bad', are not helpful or even worth posting. I'm not saying you can't criticize blizzard, you should, but do so constructively in the form of feedback, not just the usual internet trollololol posts. | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote: Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content. lol, I was thinking the same thing, especially d3, it was a decent game, but it did not really appear to be polished/finished for some reason. Similarly with sc2, so many core features missing from what was billed to built "ground up for e-sports". Then valve comes in a just completely trounces them with a much,much superior game client,even in beta early on. But then, the other line is even better, he doesnt understand why activision, and more importantly kotick has a bad reputation. Maybe this explains why they are so out of touch. | ||
|
Ashur
Czech Republic646 Posts
SC2 - compare it to HoN, LoL or Dota2. Games are promoted by game engine, you can view streams directly in game clients, there are tournaments for millions, you can connect to already running game, addons. Can you say this about SC2? WoW - MoP does not fulfill hardcore players expactations, overall gameplay is faceroll since WotLK, game is easier and easier each patch. They rushed Cataclysm dev time and came with MoP, just to earn as much money as possible from already existing subscriptions. Would you expect lore from MoP pre-release event? Oh BTW, where is dance studio, observation of other guilds raid encounter//friends arena matches? D3 - RMAH sucks, it's totally user unfirendly. Game itself is boring as hell, I would say it's D2 clone w/o any inovation. I would expect some dungeons, even paid dungeons, that would be (multiplayerly) challenging, Blizzard was to year 2006 a company, that made interesting innovations to already existing games, they always did a product, that was fun to play over and over again, even after 5 years when it was released. But does that company fulfill that role now? I guess not. I'd expect: SC2: Chatchannels, clan support (e.g dota2 flags, channels, replay sharing - kind of clan website substitution), replay sharing, multiplayer replays, no maphacks (HoN game engine), user made tournaments (i'd pay few bucks if needed), reonnecting to running game and possibility to observe any game that's going on D3: new content every few months, interesting boss fights, usable auction house where I can find what I need, paid dungeons where I can find better gear, legenrady stuff if I was lucky, some kind of cooperation with friends. WoW: content is comming way too slowly, it does not say enough about lore (see destruction of Theramore nowadays), really "challenging" content, not that the hardest raid can be beaten by 25DKs, Currently it seems Blizzard tried to make everyone happy so they pay them monthly, so I see a kind of communism where everyone has same transmogrified fancy gear for no reason. All the epicness is gone, and that is not just about of WoW. Why is this happening? Money, Blizzard as any other company came from a small studio to corporation, that must generate profit. Because of Activision, but its not about Activision as a group, its about money system they are involved into. Generate money, every time, by any way. So as a conclusion they rush expansions, patches, ideas.. Because of money. Their parents wont accept that some amount of money is sufficent, they want as much as possible. Because of that you get: 1) WoW Expansion (Cata) that had 3 content patches instead of 4. And its successor MoP that shoudn't be in that place, because of another one that will come after MoP. 2) SC2 Battle.net GUI. Even revisited it sucks and does not meet any of our requirements 3) D3. Game that I enjoyed to play for 2 weeks and found it super-boring after Think twice, do you really enjoy Blizzard games since Activision aquisition? I do not. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: SC2 is fun. Can you say this about HoN, LoL or Dota? No.   I think they're all pretty boring. SC2 is superior though. | ||
|
Ashur
Czech Republic646 Posts
On September 19 2012 01:08 Djzapz wrote: If Blizzard is not Activision's puppet, all it tells me is that Blizzard is completely dead and not just crippled by Activision. I concur. Btw if you have troubles reading my previous post it is because I am drunk  On September 19 2012 01:11 Djzapz wrote: I think they're all pretty boring. SC2 is superior though.True, but I was talking about game engine and how companies (Valve, Riot) take care of their products. Continuous and more frequent patches, and implementation of what people request is what I see. I do not see that in case of SC2. SC2 as a game is superior successor of SC1. A perfect clone with new graphics. But that's something from 1997, I'd expect a little bit more nowadays, especially when it was already implemented in W3 bnet. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: SC2 is fun. Can you say this about HoN, LoL or Dota? No. Personal opinions are subjective. Can I say it about those games? Yes. I like SC2 more but that's not the point, no reason to make an argument like "this is how I like it, you should too!" and pretend it will hold up. | ||
|
Kergy
Peru2011 Posts
Cool. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 19 2012 01:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Personal opinions are subjective. Can I say it about those games? Yes. I like SC2 more but that's not the point, no reason to make an argument like "this is how I like it, you should too!" and pretend it will hold up. You're so obnoxious -_- | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1971 Posts
| ||
|
Kuni
Austria765 Posts
I remember playing the Warcraft series like there was no tomorrow. Playing all the awesome custom games even after long having stopped playing Wc3 was still a huge motivation. I remember Starcraft 1. Wasn't really playing online, only with a friend of mine, but the campaign alone was fun, the story great. I remember playing Diablo 2 like I was a poor chinese farmer playing for his life. It was so much fun, even though it had only a few acts and you basically played the same thing over and over again. Didn't change anything. Same with LoD. I remember starting to play WoW. I played this game more than all the others combined.... at first. .... I remember WoW getting worse and worse in every area. Fun, creativity, difficulty, motivation .... .... I remember playing the Sc2 campaign .. it was okay, but nothing special. .... I didn't really ever find the motivation to play it online, not because of ladder anxiety or anything like that, but rather because it just didn't/doesn't have this magical spark that will make you want to play the game until you cannot move your body anymore. Why waste time when you don't find the game inspiring? .... I fucking FROM HELL want to forget ever having played Diablo 3. Yes I grew older, but I can still play until I fall off my chair with other games, just not Blizzard games anymore. The reason I still (at least try to play the new Blizzard games) is, that there is this huge hope and anticipation, that the next one will be not good, but great again. Now you could blame it on the Batman, but soon they won't even get a nickel for their grandma's anymore, at least from me. Huge disappointment. Grew up with awesome, saw it go to shit and I don't fucking care if Activision is to blame or the fucking retards they hired as replacements for the awesome dudes who made all those incredible games. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On September 19 2012 00:39 Arachne wrote: I thought everyone hated Kotick for coming out and saying "We are upping the price of the game to $70 to milk as much money as humanly possible out the game (MW2)". Or something very similar to those lines. Tbh, the mass produced, glitchy releases are a direct result of that marketting strategy than anything else. So ye, it is possible to lay it all on Kotick's feet, if that is true If you consider inflation, it's surprising that video game prices have hardly changed in the last 15 years. They're what? $60 for a new AAA game? SC1 was $50 in 1998. I think Final Fantasy III was $70 for whatever reason. Most games were about $50 or $40 for B games. FFVII was $50 or 60. Chrono Cross, Warcraft III, Neverwinter Nights, Jedi Knight II: Outcast--they were all $50 (maybe 60 dollars for NWN). In a way, we've been demanding more for less and I can see why developers might be fed up. I don't know if the costs of making games has gone up or down, but given the amount of voice acting, I'm inclined to think their overhead has increased. I can't imagine it cost that much to produce Sonic and Knuckles compared to Mass Effect 3. I don't mean to excuse developers for bad content (again, ME3). I'd happily pay $80 or $100 or even more if I knew I was getting my money's worth. $60 was not even worth it for ME3 if you despised the ending as I do, as well as the overall rushed nature of that game. Bethesda should be able to charge more for Skyrim, but I'm guessing no developer wants to be the bad guy. Increased prices would induce mass nerd rage from entitled kids forgetting that games are a luxury. It's understandable, but I have to wonder if developers are being stretched thin and pushed far harder than in the past. | ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
| ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
| ||
| ||
