|
From the Article, "Blizzard: Activision Doesn't Tell Us What To Do".
The game director of WoW has come out and announced that Activision is, in fact, not the devil (despite popular belief). The article goes on to reference various complaints about Activision as well as what Blizzard's responsibility to their parent company entails. I've included a snippet of the article and link below.
Ever since Blizzard merged with Activision, the World of WarCraft and StarCraft studio has often been accused of kow-towing to Activision's demands. However, WoW game director Tom Chilton says that Blizzard has more freedom than everyone thinks.
"I'll come out and say it. Activision gets an unfair reputation among our players for this, as does [Activision-Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick," Chilton said during a Reddit Q&A. "We do demos for the Activision executive team about twice per year (sometimes only once)."
The full article can be read at the following link:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Blizzard-Activision-Doesn-t-Tell-Us-What-Do-46829.html
Cheers.
|
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
|
So products with significant flaws are not the fault of Blizzard being unable to do it right because of Activision, but because Blizzard simply can't do it right.
Every time I play Diablo 3 I get smacked in the face with the realization that Diablo, a game released 16 years before Diablo 3, has more responsive and accurate controls. I don't think Activision told Blizzard, "Make it annoying as hell to pick up items and target monsters!"
|
Oh really? The company they're merged with isn't the Devil because they say so? Interesting...
In all actuality I just think Blizzard has become a poor game making company with terms of customer service and overall gameplay/balance, whether that be because finances or a merger I don't know or speculate on but using this as an example to say Activiision is not bad is a rather poor choice.
|
Ever since Blizzard merged with Activision, the World of WarCraft and StarCraft studio has often been accused of kow-towing to Activision's demands. However, WoW game director Tom Chilton says that Blizzard has more freedom than everyone thinks.
"I'll come out and say it. Activision gets an unfair reputation among our players for this, as does [Activision-Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick," Chilton said during a Reddit Q&A. "We do demos for the Activision executive team about twice per year (sometimes only once)."
Chilton adds that Activision asks "intelligent questions" about WoW's development. That's as far as the influence goes, though. They've never made any mandates, or mandates-disguised-as-suggestions, regarding the game.
Is Blizzard completely autonomous? No, they're a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard at the end of the day. However, I think that a lot of Activision-Blizzard criticism is of the tinfoil hat territory. Bobby Kotick has gotten blamed for WoW expansions being released too quickly, Diablo 3's real-money auction house, StarCraft 2's DRM and so forth. He can apparently micromanage each of these games while also "milking" Call of Duty and Guitar Hero.
The reason the whole "Activision-Blizzard/Bobby Kotick is the devil" argument persists is that it's easy. It's much cleaner to just dump all responsibilities onto Kotick or "the evil suits." The truth of the matter, though, is that there are many, many people involved in making a game. Activision-Blizzard has several thousand employees across all of its divisions. You really think that only one guy or one shadowy room of executives is responsible for every fuck-up? Really?
That's the thing with evaluating games as a critic or player, though. You don't really get to peek inside at the process that produces the game. You can't tell whether this manager is a jerk-off or that QA tester is lazy or whatever. Our criticism ought to be focused on the final game that they produce. That seems like a better use of our time than pretending we know the exact chain of ev that led a company to produce bad DRM.
Hardly anything really noteworthy to be honest. I thought some people already knew that Blizzard does their own thing.
|
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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
d3's character control is pretty good. just some details like too many item clutter (a problem d2 had as well) that shouldn't be that big of a ground for complaint.
|
So is this them saying that people who are upset with the low quality of games recently should just be mad at Blizzard alone, and not Activision as well? I think that one of the reason I always thought the reason the games just weren't as good as they used to be was because Activision was messing with them is because I just wanted to believe that the company I have grown up off of was not in such a decline, oh well
|
On September 19 2012 00:34 Torte de Lini wrote:Hardly anything really noteworthy to be honest. I thought some people already knew that Blizzard does their own thing.
You'd be surprised how stupid some people are.
Blizzard has said this all before and they will probably say it again, but people will still insist that StarCraft 2 being 3 games was the result of Bobby Kotick threatening to kill their children if they didn't split the game.
Blizzard's situation is unlike 95% of those in the games industry because it isn't a subsidiary of Activision - they're partners. It's a merger. Bobby Kotick can't dictate Blizzard internal design decisions.
|
"Yeah guys, all those poor decisions you've blamed on our parent company the past five years are actually all on us."
|
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 
|
Regardless of wether Activision influences Blizzard or not, it's obvious Blizzard is now concentrating much more on profitability and making money as oppose to game quality. Diablo 3 RMAH is probably the best example of this, and just in general it seems most of their decisions are now driven by "what is going to make our game the most appealing to the most people" as oppose to "what's best for the game itself". I mean it's pretty obvious they are getting pressure from Activision to increase the bottom line. Not really blaming them, they are a business and their main goal at the end of the day is to make money, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor behind everything. They need to balance out and be careful not to sacrifice too much game quality just to make profits.
|
Well tell me whose fault it is. I won't believe that it's you Blizzard it just can't be. Is it the US goverment? Is it the Aliens? The Nazis? The Jews? The terrorists?? WHO IS IT?? I NEED TO DEMONIZE SOMEONE, but not you my precious, not you...
|
Oh man this makes me feel even worse! Its one to be manipulated for business decision, its another to be plainly dull with the designs.
|
On September 19 2012 00:39 Offhand wrote:
"Yeah guys, all those poor decisions you've blamed on our parent company the past five years are actually all on us."
Hahaha, exactly what I was thinking.
|
Blizzard was on a downward path long before activision got involved, no surprise here.
|
On September 19 2012 00:40 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Well tell me whose fault it is. I won't believe that it's you Blizzard it just can't be. Is it the US goverment? Is it the Aliens? The Nazis? The Jews? The terrorists?? WHO IS IT?? I NEED TO DEMONIZE SOMEONE, but not you my precious, not you...
fuckin 5 star post
|
On September 19 2012 00:34 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +Ever since Blizzard merged with Activision, the World of WarCraft and StarCraft studio has often been accused of kow-towing to Activision's demands. However, WoW game director Tom Chilton says that Blizzard has more freedom than everyone thinks.
"I'll come out and say it. Activision gets an unfair reputation among our players for this, as does [Activision-Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick," Chilton said during a Reddit Q&A. "We do demos for the Activision executive team about twice per year (sometimes only once)."
Chilton adds that Activision asks "intelligent questions" about WoW's development. That's as far as the influence goes, though. They've never made any mandates, or mandates-disguised-as-suggestions, regarding the game.
Is Blizzard completely autonomous? No, they're a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard at the end of the day. However, I think that a lot of Activision-Blizzard criticism is of the tinfoil hat territory. Bobby Kotick has gotten blamed for WoW expansions being released too quickly, Diablo 3's real-money auction house, StarCraft 2's DRM and so forth. He can apparently micromanage each of these games while also "milking" Call of Duty and Guitar Hero.
The reason the whole "Activision-Blizzard/Bobby Kotick is the devil" argument persists is that it's easy. It's much cleaner to just dump all responsibilities onto Kotick or "the evil suits." The truth of the matter, though, is that there are many, many people involved in making a game. Activision-Blizzard has several thousand employees across all of its divisions. You really think that only one guy or one shadowy room of executives is responsible for every fuck-up? Really?
That's the thing with evaluating games as a critic or player, though. You don't really get to peek inside at the process that produces the game. You can't tell whether this manager is a jerk-off or that QA tester is lazy or whatever. Our criticism ought to be focused on the final game that they produce. That seems like a better use of our time than pretending we know the exact chain of ev that led a company to produce bad DRM. Hardly anything really noteworthy to be honest. I thought some people already knew that Blizzard does their own thing.
99% of people don't know Blizzard is autonomous from Activision
Blizzard not living up to their previous games isn't an Activision thing. It's that the people Blizzard has now aren't the same people when Blizzard released their old games.
It's massively apparent with Jay Wilson's comments and overall game design decisions in D3.
|
Why in gods name would you admit that you're a terrible game designer when the public believes its not your fault?!
|
company creativity kind of died right after d2
|
lol i love the implication that this kind of statement makes.
Shame they've fallen so far.
|
It's still just PR and I'm not buying it. It still feel like Blizzard's adopted some of Activision's philosophies even if there was no overt pressure to do so. It could also just be the WoW cash cow corrupting the company's integrity over time.
|
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.
|
Why would Tom make this statement?
|
I still love blizzard and have spent many many many hours on all of their games. Still the best game designers around. Paradox are imo the better publishers though, but that's about it.
|
Blizzard can't win, blame their parent companies, blizzard loses for 'being part of them'
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.
|
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.
|
I thought I would never say this, but to me it seems that Blizzard sucks lately. Take these facts:
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.
|
If Blizzard is not Activision's puppet, all it tells me is that Blizzard is completely dead and not just crippled by Activision.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +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? SC2 is fun. Can you say this about HoN, LoL or Dota? No. 
 I think they're all pretty boring. SC2 is superior though.
|
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:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: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? SC2 is fun. Can you say this about HoN, LoL or Dota? No. 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.
|
On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
|
So now I can't blame Activision for the shit Blizzard does but only Blizzard themselves?
Cool.
|
On September 19 2012 01:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: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? 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.
You're so obnoxious -_-
|
So its not Activisions fault that Blizzard is producing mediocre stuff?
|
I remember playing Rock n Roll Racing. We played the shit out of it. It was awesome.
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.
|
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.
|
We can see that on how polished Diablo 3 was at release, they weren't rushed by activision in the slightest.
|
Now selling rose-colored glasses, for those of us who have no fucking idea what half the people in this thread are talking about when they say that Blizzard makes shitty games now.
|
None of what he said really matters at this point. You can't expect someone from within the company to actually be honest if the issues existed in the first place, so this neither confirms nor denies any speculations.
Besides, Blizzard has been bleeding talent for over a decade, with many people creatively responsible for their classic games having left a long time ago. At this point it isn't inconceivable that their visions are limited and the content they're putting out is simply the best they're capable of.
|
On September 19 2012 01:32 Kuni wrote:
I remember playing Rock n Roll Racing. We played the shit out of it. It was awesome.
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.
I sign under this post.
|
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly.
|
Obvious. I don't get all the Activision scapegoating.
Blizzard has made a lot of idiotic decisions. Stop blaming Activision, and start blaming Blizzard.,
|
On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
Wait what happened? I'm not aware of this :o
|
On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly.
This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc?
Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision.
Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard.
|
On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
I work in a software company where we have a motto "Release things done", currently Blizzard seems to "Release things undone, the rest will come Soon™. "
|
On September 19 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
Wait what happened? I'm not aware of this :o
In the last BW OSL finals they showed a clip of Mike Morhaime I believe telling all the fans to drop BW and get with the future: SC2. The exact words felt far more offensive than I can portray here. Unsurprisingly it didn't resonate with BW fans.
|
|
|
Even if the things that people say about Activision were true you really think blizzard would openly admit it in some random article?
Saying bad things about your owner publicly doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
The things I have heard and read about Bobby Kotick up till make me think he is a white,ginger version of Gus Fring.
|
Just because Blizzard shows their demos to Activision once every year does not mean Activision does not track Blizzard's financial record. I didn't go to business school but I am 100% certain Activision has expectations for Blizzard to make a certain amount of profit per year - they just don't care much about Blizzard's mean to get those money.
|
On September 19 2012 01:52 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
Wait what happened? I'm not aware of this :o In the last BW OSL finals they showed a clip of Mike Morhaime I believe telling all the fans to drop BW and get with the future: SC2. The exact words felt far more offensive than I can portray here. Unsurprisingly it didn't resonate with BW fans.
On September 19 2012 01:53 IntoTheEmo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
Wait what happened? I'm not aware of this :o It starts here in the LR thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=350009¤tpage=94There was a recording on Sayle's twitch.tv account but I don't know if it's still there
Thanks guys. I'd like to hear the actual quote... Sounds like I have more reasons to dislike that wretched company now...
|
I'm not so sure about this, despite of whether you like Blizzard's latest releases or not, Blizz didn't release half-completed titles. Sure, there's some gameplay things here and there, particularly about D3, but pre Actiblizz would NEVER have released D3 without PvP for example, without those paragon levels, and with those half-assed legendaries. Blizzard games have always improved a lot with patches, but they have never required them to be complete as a game.
For the somewhat bland gameplay, and some strange decisions, I blame blizzard. For releasing incomplete games, and without Blizzard-like polish, I blame Activision, since the design policy changed way too abruptly and there's no other reason for that to happen except tighter deadlines, which mostly big publishers enforce.
|
On September 19 2012 01:55 TheKefka wrote:
Even if the things that people say about Activision was true you really think blizzard would openly admit it in some random article?
Blizzard employees changed over time. I beleive you heard about bitching on facebook:
+ Show Spoiler +
and its not just him, also whole Blizz North, Bill Roper and others. That company has changed a lot for last decade. My question to open public is what has changed since 2004 (WoW release), was there anything, that you say in next 10 years "oh that was amazing thing, I spent my childhood playing it?" I'd say no, they still release decent products, but its not epic anymore. A magical spark of Blizzard game is gone since WoW.
On September 19 2012 02:02 mordk wrote:
Blizz didn't release half-completed titles.
Yes, it still can be worse. We are not discussing EA, right?
|
People built up an idea in their head of the perfect game for so long that NOTHING was going to reach their level of expectation. And now it's cool to hate them while still posting on a website dedicated to two of their titles.
|
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?!
I think the piles, and piles, and piles, and piles, of money they've made as a "terrible game designer" probably cushions the blow from all the hate.
|
On September 19 2012 02:02 Ashur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:55 TheKefka wrote:
Even if the things that people say about Activision was true you really think blizzard would openly admit it in some random article?
Blizzard employees changed over time. I beleive you heard about bitching on facebook: + Show Spoiler +and its not just him, also whole Blizz North, Bill Roper and others. That company has changed a lot for last decade. My question to open public is what has changed since 2004 (WoW release), was there anything, that you say in next 10 years "oh that was amazing thing, I spent my childhood playing it?" I'd say no, they still release decent products, but its not epic anymore. A magical spark of Blizzard game is gone since WoW. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:02 mordk wrote:
Blizz didn't release half-completed titles. Yes, it still can be worse. We are not discussing EA, right?
Well, IMO, until Wotlk WoW is one of the best games ever released, definitely the best MMORPG ever, and one of the games that I've had the most fun playing 
WoW is (or was, never played cata and beyond), an incredible game
|
On September 19 2012 02:03 klaxen wrote:
People built up an idea in their head of the perfect game for so long that NOTHING was going to reach their level of expectation. And now it's cool to hate them while still posting on a website dedicated to two of their titles.
Are you referring to KESPA, people or whole SCBW community? We are not Blizzard employees or sheeps, we did ouselves. Think of PGTour, ICC, etc. They made us a tool of course, but still the spirit is in us, not in their current goal, to get as much money as possible. Think twice, they are doing it for money, not to make you feel comfortable or happy playing their game. You spent 60$ on SC2, and I have no doubt you will buy HotS. So in their eyes, what needs to be changed what so ever?
|
Not really a surprise, but it just confirms that blizz is going down hill. Ahhh well, at least this means there is still hope.
|
On September 19 2012 00:56 Scarecrow wrote:
It's still just PR and I'm not buying it. It still feel like Blizzard's adopted some of Activision's philosophies even if there was no overt pressure to do so. It could also just be the WoW cash cow corrupting the company's integrity over time.
The funny thing is that WoW is the most well-designed game that Blizzard is supporting at the moment.
I find a couple things odd. First, it's funny that Blizzard is essentially saying that the decline in game quality is, in fact, completely their fault, and not Activision's. I guess that's noble of them.
Beyond that, I find that the Blizzard fanbase (especially some of the long-standing fans) have become quite entitled when it comes to games (myself included). Let's be reasonable here; World of Warcraft is still the best MMO every created; it is specifically designed to be a semi-casual to casual-friendly game and almost everything that WoW is doing is pushing it toward that aim and it is doing it well. At this point, there really isn't any valid criticism for WoW aside from saying "It's too easy"; and this isn't even a valid claim because the game is made to be easy.
As for SC2, by all industry accounts, this game is a very good game. Presentation is well-done (graphics are unique and stylized, controls and UI are fluid and intuitive) and the gameplay is great. Of course, there are valid criticisms. B.net 2.0 has an obviously inferior UI to the original B.net. Not only that, the game is in this limbo between appealing to casual players and taking the role of BW in the esports scene due to the fact that Blizzard very intentionally used SC2 to kill the BW scene. And, of course, any objective spectator can see that SC2's current condition is far worse in terms of esports than BW's was. Oh, and the SC2 story is some of the worst righting in any game made in the past 10 years. All of that said, the game is a very good game for the vast majority of the gaming population.
I'll give the heavy-handed critics their leeway with Diablo 3. There's really nothing that Diablo 3 improved over its predecessor; in fact, Diablo 3 did pretty much everything worse than Diablo 2 did. Diablo 3 is incredibly uninspired and really would be the "money grab" out of these three. But again, it is still a fun game and for the majority of gamers (which are casual), the game is perfectly acceptable.
Overall, while criticisms of games are perfectly valid, we should all take a moment to remember that these games are still good, and we just have an incredibly high standard set by previous Blizzard games.
|
On September 19 2012 02:05 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:02 Ashur wrote:On September 19 2012 01:55 TheKefka wrote:
Even if the things that people say about Activision was true you really think blizzard would openly admit it in some random article?
Blizzard employees changed over time. I beleive you heard about bitching on facebook: + Show Spoiler +and its not just him, also whole Blizz North, Bill Roper and others. That company has changed a lot for last decade. My question to open public is what has changed since 2004 (WoW release), was there anything, that you say in next 10 years "oh that was amazing thing, I spent my childhood playing it?" I'd say no, they still release decent products, but its not epic anymore. A magical spark of Blizzard game is gone since WoW. On September 19 2012 02:02 mordk wrote:
Blizz didn't release half-completed titles. Yes, it still can be worse. We are not discussing EA, right? Well, IMO, until Wotlk WoW is one of the best games ever released, definitely the best MMORPG ever, and one of the games that I've had the most fun playing WoW is (or was, never played cata and beyond), an incredible game
I agree but I kinda liked Ulduar and imo it had a good design and boss mechanics.
Everything else in WotLK was pretty bad or just meh.
|
Only and last hope will maybe come with Hots and Lotv Sc2 if they ruin it again like Diable 3 and SC2 Wol(not that sexy like BW still) they only prove they already forgot when merge to make game for the people and not only for money .
|
On September 19 2012 02:03 klaxen wrote:
People built up an idea in their head of the perfect game for so long that NOTHING was going to reach their level of expectation. And now it's cool to hate them while still posting on a website dedicated to two of their titles.
If they rereleased warcraft 3 and starcraft BW with better graphics I would have bought it. It's really easy to appease most of us really. Our demands with Battlenet 2.0 were mostly very easy to implement. Some of the ground breaking stuff would be understandable if they were very slow to implement but it doesn't feel like they're slow, it feels like they're deaf.
|
Perhaps Activision doesn't directly control Blizzard's decisions but I guarantee they have influenced them. Fact is, Blizzard has increasingly made efforts to casualize and monetize their games, something Activision is infamous for. Creativity in all aspects of their games has also gone down since the merger.
|
On September 19 2012 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:56 Scarecrow wrote:
It's still just PR and I'm not buying it. It still feel like Blizzard's adopted some of Activision's philosophies even if there was no overt pressure to do so. It could also just be the WoW cash cow corrupting the company's integrity over time. The funny thing is that WoW is the most well-designed game that Blizzard is supporting at the moment. I find a couple things odd. First, it's funny that Blizzard is essentially saying that the decline in game quality is, in fact, completely their fault, and not Activision's. I guess that's noble of them. Beyond that, I find that the Blizzard fanbase (especially some of the long-standing fans) have become quite entitled when it comes to games (myself included). Let's be reasonable here; World of Warcraft is still the best MMO every created; it is specifically designed to be a semi-casual to casual-friendly game and almost everything that WoW is doing is pushing it toward that aim and it is doing it well. At this point, there really isn't any valid criticism for WoW aside from saying "It's too easy"; and this isn't even a valid claim because the game is made to be easy.
You find it surprising that Blizzard would criticize themselves? Blizzard has been publicly criticizing itself for years and years. For example, every expansion, they announce that their current talent system is badly designed, and every expansion they design a new talent system in an attempt to fix those design flaws. Also, WoW is not easy, Try 25m progression raiding. The current tier doesn't count because it's been out for almost 1 year.
|
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up..
|
On September 19 2012 02:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 00:56 Scarecrow wrote:
It's still just PR and I'm not buying it. It still feel like Blizzard's adopted some of Activision's philosophies even if there was no overt pressure to do so. It could also just be the WoW cash cow corrupting the company's integrity over time. The funny thing is that WoW is the most well-designed game that Blizzard is supporting at the moment. I find a couple things odd. First, it's funny that Blizzard is essentially saying that the decline in game quality is, in fact, completely their fault, and not Activision's. I guess that's noble of them. Beyond that, I find that the Blizzard fanbase (especially some of the long-standing fans) have become quite entitled when it comes to games (myself included). Let's be reasonable here; World of Warcraft is still the best MMO every created; it is specifically designed to be a semi-casual to casual-friendly game and almost everything that WoW is doing is pushing it toward that aim and it is doing it well. At this point, there really isn't any valid criticism for WoW aside from saying "It's too easy"; and this isn't even a valid claim because the game is made to be easy. Do find it surprising that Blizzard would criticism themselves? Blizzard has been publicly criticizing itself for years and years. For example, every expansion, they announce they their current talent system is badly deigned, and every expansion they design a new talent system in an attempt to fix those design flaws. Also, WoW is not easy, Trying 25m progression raiding. The current tier doesn't count because it's been out for almost 1 year.
Raiding is and has always been easy (I was a hardcore raider in Vanilla, so don't go all "back in my day..."). The only "challenge" is the time sink and occassionally the coordination, although that just takes a basic intellectual capacity.
|
I quit WoW at the tail end of BC and before WotLK, so I only have positive things to say about its quality. WoW, at least up until I quit, was awesome.
|
On September 19 2012 02:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 00:56 Scarecrow wrote:
It's still just PR and I'm not buying it. It still feel like Blizzard's adopted some of Activision's philosophies even if there was no overt pressure to do so. It could also just be the WoW cash cow corrupting the company's integrity over time. The funny thing is that WoW is the most well-designed game that Blizzard is supporting at the moment. I find a couple things odd. First, it's funny that Blizzard is essentially saying that the decline in game quality is, in fact, completely their fault, and not Activision's. I guess that's noble of them. Beyond that, I find that the Blizzard fanbase (especially some of the long-standing fans) have become quite entitled when it comes to games (myself included). Let's be reasonable here; World of Warcraft is still the best MMO every created; it is specifically designed to be a semi-casual to casual-friendly game and almost everything that WoW is doing is pushing it toward that aim and it is doing it well. At this point, there really isn't any valid criticism for WoW aside from saying "It's too easy"; and this isn't even a valid claim because the game is made to be easy. Do find it surprising that Blizzard would criticism themselves? Blizzard has been publicly criticizing itself for years and years. For example, every expansion, they announce they their current talent system is badly deigned, and every expansion they design a new talent system in an attempt to fix those design flaws. Also, WoW is not easy, Trying 25m progression raiding. The current tier doesn't count because it's been out for almost 1 year. Raiding is and has always been easy (I was a hardcore raider in Vanilla, so don't go all "back in my day..."). The only "challenge" is the time sink and occassionally the coordination, although that just takes a basic intellectual capacity.
It's so easy it takes world first guilds 500 attempts to kill a boss. And that less than 1% of players have killed Sinatra despite it being 2 tiers old.
|
i can tell you as an ex game programmer, blizzard content is not shit, and CANT be rushed or youll see a new one every year. shareholders are important tho. if the company does not make the masses of profit it needs to you can guarantee that this company will sell the ip to a franchise/company to develop the game on their behalf, i used to work for a company that did this, we took games FROM sega through a bidding process and developed the game. you need to think about it in terms of money spent on the overall dev of a project wages, but in this case ur practically paying a guy to create original game tools or then they hav to pay companies like the mp3 algorithm creators and any other off the shelf program you happen to use in your game.
hell dont even know why im bothering here, ive done, seen it, rubbed shoulders with a couple of the billionaires of europe and in the end they want their products to be the best but it has to be released, the longer you leave a game the more it becomes outdated. the current gen of consoles are coming to the end of their life, have a look at the output over the industry its in a slump as noone wants to get caught spending millions on a game which a VERY limited lifespan. That shit will get yuou closed dowen if you dont at least break even
|
On September 19 2012 01:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: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? 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. You're so obnoxious -_-
I'm glad you edited out the part where you were saying you weren't arguing anything ^^ It was kinda cute.
On September 19 2012 01:52 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
Wait what happened? I'm not aware of this :o In the last BW OSL finals they showed a clip of Mike Morhaime I believe telling all the fans to drop BW and get with the future: SC2. The exact words felt far more offensive than I can portray here. Unsurprisingly it didn't resonate with BW fans.
Well... T.T that's just how it is, why would a game developer want people to play an outdated game that they\re making no money off. Community or not frankly no one gives a shit about BW anymore with regards to finances and for a business that's all that matters.
|
On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up..
D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game,
|
On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game,
Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D
|
yeah probably activision tell blizzard to say that ...
|
On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game,
honestly rmah is basically the exact same as d2jsp except 12 year olds can access it 'more safely'.. and real traders still use d2jsp to avoid blizzard taking a cut from their profits anyways
|
On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D
Too bad Blizzard balanced drops around RMAH. Go grind D2 for an hour and you'll have at least one character+stash full of set items and uniques. You're lucky to find one decent item in 10 hours of farming D3.
|
On September 19 2012 02:29 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D Too bad Blizzard balanced drops around RMAH. Go grind D2 for an hour and you'll have at least one character+stash full of set items and uniques. You're lucky to find one decent item in 10 hours of farming D3.
Doesn't matter, killing things is satisfying enough for a small gaming session. I have years to build my chars if I want to do so
|
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?!
Because games like World of Warcraft and StarCraft are not terrible games?
|
R.I.P blizzard since the release of "the burning crusade" wow expansion, everything since then has been meh...
|
On September 19 2012 02:29 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, honestly rmah is basically the exact same as d2jsp except 12 year olds can access it 'more safely'.. and real traders still use d2jsp to avoid blizzard taking a cut from their profits anyways
I've sold stuff at d2jsp and many other sites (made my lunch money during HS selling anni on ebay). D3 RMAH is probably worst of them all in term of actual service provided, customer support, and yes, even safety. How many people you know got scammed trading over 3rd party sites? I lost at least 200 usd due to "Failed Transaction". I sold a ring for 100, got a failed transaction and returned, sold it again for 50 a week later, again got failed transaction, then I ended up selling it for like 6 bucks after 1.4
|
On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D
You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place?
|
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
this made me lol.
|
On September 19 2012 02:33 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place?
i dunno, just play it as if it was a single player game and as if there isn't a retarded easy to access rmah.. i see what you mean though, but content wise it's still able to be enjoyed, albeit the "thrill" of online play is greatly diminished though.. i didn't know they balanced loot around the rmah though, that's really retarded.. with that logic they should have done it with LoD as well..
|
On September 19 2012 02:33 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place?
A lot of single player games have "nothing to play for" apart from the story and how much fun the mechanics of the game bring you.D3 story sucked tho.
Tbh Diablo 3 was the first new single player game I played in like the last 4 years.
I don't know if its just me being a cheep bastard but if I want to play a good single player game I play the old psx or game boy games on an emulator.
|
On September 19 2012 02:39 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place? A lot of single player games have "nothing to play for" apart from the story and how much fun the mechanics of the game bring you.D3 story sucked tho. Tbh Diablo 3 was the first new single player game I played in like the last 4 years. I don't know if its just me being a cheep bastard but if I want to play a good single player game I play the old psx or game boy games on an emulator.
Single player you are expected to play 40-80 hours. I have a feeling that's not what Blizzard or anyone had in mind.
|
the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made.
all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release.
the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released.
as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes.
some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999.
it was hardly nirvana.
the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin.
who wants to play some Red Alert 3?
or maybe some Company of Heroes?
|
well this thread is only gona be blizzard bashing
|
On September 19 2012 02:43 CrtBalorda wrote:
well this thread is only gona be blizzard bashing
They "bashed" themselves in the article lol....what do you expect
People were saying forever their games have gone downhill and they just confirmed it so idk.
|
blah, net died for a bit.
On September 19 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly. This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc? Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision. Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard.
Meh, you could say that mass caster imbalance in WC3: Reign of Chaos was a stupid decision too. But balance is one thing, was it a bad game? Did people sit around in cities all day? People went out and did stuff regardless. Oh yeah, and the arena gear had rating requirements. WoW didn't get its popularity from WoLTK, that's for sure. I guess I meant the complaints from people with common sense. Why shouldn't you have to learn to be better at the game to get the most out of it?
You sorta could tell that they were putting in the effort to do things. How many facepalm worthy decisions have they made recently? WoW classes are balanced now, but at the expense of only having 7 talents?
And yeah I wasn't saying it WAS Activision, but the timing was pretty good for it and you can't really blame anyone for that. It's sooo much easier to point a finger at the rather questionable Koltick than directly at the company who made the games we used to revere.
|
On September 19 2012 02:46 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:43 CrtBalorda wrote:
well this thread is only gona be blizzard bashing They "bashed" themselves in the article lol....what do you expect
Oh, I must have missed the part where they said "My name is Tom Chilton and we make bad games".
|
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms.
|
On September 19 2012 02:33 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place?
??
I don't understand
I play the game because I find it fun that is all. I don't play games to have uber characters and nothing else. I play them because I have fun doing so, be it looting items, killing hard bosses, advancing levels, or whatever, the conjunction of games' features is what lures me to play a game.
In D3's case, I find it fun and relaxing to pump some music and slay some random shit, while I wait for luck to arrive in terms of items. I don't give a single fuck about RMAH it doesn't affect my experience at all.
On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes?
I agree in SC2's case and I agree that Blizzard has THE best support for their games in the whole industry, I don't doubt that. But their games used to have a larger degree of polish, this is clearly noticeable on D3, in which legendaries were obviously bland, and there was no PvP, a feature which is kind of central to most Action RPGs around, and Diablo in particular (note that I have never enjoyed PvP in Diablo, but I find it to be an important and defining feature).
There's a big difference between releasing a game with balance issues and some graphic and interface glitches, and releasing incomplete games.
Look at Skyrim, shitty UI, absurd graphic glitches, horses flying around, whatever, but no one would ever say it was released incomplete. Diablo 3, in comparison, was released at beta stage, which is extremely un-Blizzlike in my eyes, which is why I blame Activision for those things.
D3 isn't getting tweaked by patches, it's getting released FFS. Also to note I like and enjoy D3 a lot I'm no hater, I just miss the way Blizzard used to make games, it was unique, Blizzard used to be a synonym of taking an old concept and getting it to it's full potential, we can't say that anymore, although SC2 kinda escapes this because like it or not it's the highest quality RTS in years.
|
The entire game is messed up because of two critical design mistakes:
1. Warpgates
2. Sentries
Remove these, and you can remove all the garbage like roach and marauder and immortal and blink. Get rid of the colossus for good measure while you are at it.
|
On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms.
1. Are you suggesting that they immediately began working on Heart of the Swarm directly after Wings of Liberty? It tooks them forever to get Wings of Liberty to a somewhat fair and balanced state. They've probably been working on Heart of the Swarm for about a year.
2. They're developing changes at a decent pace. Would you rather them release patch notes everyday with current units completely revolutionized every single day? They don't want to change too much at one time, that's how you conduct experiments - changing individual variables, slowly, one at a time.
3. Warhound is out so your example is moot. Regardless, they've been fixing the game for 2 years now. Just because they're rolling out new units does not mean that they won't ever balance the banshee or the queen or the stalker ever again.
|
On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms.
only about half the buyers of the game take multiplayer seriously.
to call it a disaster you'd have to see the campaign side of things... you have not.
but let's just assume you are correct.
if this game is a 'disaster' as you say it is then .. in these slow economy times.. NO ONE WILL BUY IT.
problem solved.
|
On September 19 2012 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms. only about half the buyers of the game take multiplayer seriously. to call it a disaster you'd have to see the campaign side of things... you have not. but let's just assume you are correct. if this game is a 'disaster' as you say it is then .. in these slow economy times.. NO ONE WILL BUY IT. problem solved.
That's why they are pushing the beta out right now. The game HAS to hit by Christmas, or it won't have good sales.
The fact is that SC2 has no mindshare. Most casual players don't care about it, and it doesn't have the same traction as SC1, because there are plenty of other PC games that people can enjoy.
And a Zerg ONLY expansion is just going to be less appealing than human only one for the masses.
|
On September 19 2012 02:47 IntoTheEmo wrote:blah, net died for a bit. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly. This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc? Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision. Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard. Meh, you could say that mass caster imbalance in WC3: Reign of Chaos was a stupid decision too. But balance is one thing, was it a bad game? Did people sit around in cities all day? People went out and did stuff regardless. Oh yeah, and the arena gear had rating requirements. WoW didn't get its popularity from WoLTK, that's for sure. I guess I meant the complaints from people with common sense. Why shouldn't you have to learn to be better at the game to get the most out of it? You sorta could tell that they were putting in the effort to do things. How many facepalm worthy decisions have they made recently? WoW classes are balanced now, but at the expense of only having 7 talents? And yeah I wasn't saying it WAS Activision, but the timing was pretty good for it and you can't really blame anyone for that. It's sooo much easier to point a finger at the rather questionable Koltick than directly at the company who made the games we used to revere.
Most of those issues weren't even balance. What was there to do in Classic WoW except 40 man raids? The entire endgame was 40 man raids. That's why the biggest complaint (apart from servers consistently blowing up and having massive queues) is raid or die. There was no endgame, nothing else to do, except raiding.
Arena gear didn't have ratings requirements at first, many still don't. The term welfare epics originated in TBC because arena gear was too easy to get with a 2s team, whereas the raiding gear was a lot harder to get.
The "balance" in WoW currently has nothing to do with the new talent system. PvE has been pretty much balanced since WotLK. Talents have nothing to do with it, since everyone who raids had the same talents under the old system anyway. It's a constant.
The point is, there was major design flaws with Classic and TBC, just as there are design flaws in WotLK, Cata and MoP. Don't blame Activision, blame Blizzard.
|
On September 19 2012 02:57 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms. 1. Are you suggesting that they immediately began working on Heart of the Swarm directly after Wings of Liberty? It tooks them forever to get Wings of Liberty to a somewhat fair and balanced state. They've probably been working on Heart of the Swarm for about a year. 2. They're developing changes at a decent pace. Would you rather them release patch notes everyday with current units completely revolutionized every single day? They don't want to change too much at one time, that's how you conduct experiments - changing individual variables, slowly, one at a time. 3. Warhound is out so your example is moot. Regardless, they've been fixing the game for 2 years now. Just because they're rolling out new units does not mean that they won't ever balance the banshee or the queen or the stalker ever again.
Their process is wrong. They want to glue in new stuff first, and balance incrementally. They should be looking at the game as a whole and balancing the entire set of interactions.
You can tweak any unit into a "balanced" state by having the right MS, hp/cost, burst/sustained DPS.
Are roaches, colossi balanced? Sure. But do they represent a hole that they dug themselves into with a lot of other overall decisions? Yes.
|
On September 19 2012 02:39 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D You don't get it. Why play at all if there is a RMAH, where you can just buy items for real money? Yes, you can choose to not use it. But that doesn't answer the question of what the point of the game is. Why play the game in the first place? A lot of single player games have "nothing to play for" apart from the story and how much fun the mechanics of the game bring you.D3 story sucked tho. Tbh Diablo 3 was the first new single player game I played in like the last 4 years. I don't know if its just me being a cheep bastard but if I want to play a good single player game I play the old psx or game boy games on an emulator.
Get dark souls on the PC if you don't have it already, regardless of retarded control schemes it's one of the best games of our age and time
|
On September 19 2012 03:03 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:57 Butterednuts wrote:On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms. 1. Are you suggesting that they immediately began working on Heart of the Swarm directly after Wings of Liberty? It tooks them forever to get Wings of Liberty to a somewhat fair and balanced state. They've probably been working on Heart of the Swarm for about a year. 2. They're developing changes at a decent pace. Would you rather them release patch notes everyday with current units completely revolutionized every single day? They don't want to change too much at one time, that's how you conduct experiments - changing individual variables, slowly, one at a time. 3. Warhound is out so your example is moot. Regardless, they've been fixing the game for 2 years now. Just because they're rolling out new units does not mean that they won't ever balance the banshee or the queen or the stalker ever again. Their process is wrong. They want to glue in new stuff first, and balance incrementally. They should be looking at the game as a whole and balancing the entire set of interactions. You can tweak any unit into a "balanced" state by having the right MS, hp/cost, burst/sustained DPS. Are roaches, colossi balanced? Sure. But do they represent a hole that they dug themselves into with a lot of other overall decisions? Yes.
So would you rather wait 2 more years for them to completely balance Wings of Liberty and then implement the new units so that they have proper balance with the Wings of Liberty units?
|
Blizzard gets all the time in the world, while Treyarch and Infinity Ward have to force out a new Call of Duty every other year?
That's why I still dislike Activision, Blizz's individual faults aside. :-\
EDIT: They're partners, true. Blizz has more negotiating power than Treyarch and IW, I assume. Still, I wish Activision would be a little more merciful to its CoD developers.
|
This is why I decided to back Obsidian's kickstarter despite their track record for awfully buggy releases, if they can get a quality RPG out they can prove a point as to how damaging publishers can be to the gaming world, since the whole point of making this kickstarter was that publishers weren't willing to spend the time and resources needed on a new IP.
2014 I await thee
|
On September 19 2012 03:05 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:03 architecture wrote:On September 19 2012 02:57 Butterednuts wrote:On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms. 1. Are you suggesting that they immediately began working on Heart of the Swarm directly after Wings of Liberty? It tooks them forever to get Wings of Liberty to a somewhat fair and balanced state. They've probably been working on Heart of the Swarm for about a year. 2. They're developing changes at a decent pace. Would you rather them release patch notes everyday with current units completely revolutionized every single day? They don't want to change too much at one time, that's how you conduct experiments - changing individual variables, slowly, one at a time. 3. Warhound is out so your example is moot. Regardless, they've been fixing the game for 2 years now. Just because they're rolling out new units does not mean that they won't ever balance the banshee or the queen or the stalker ever again. Their process is wrong. They want to glue in new stuff first, and balance incrementally. They should be looking at the game as a whole and balancing the entire set of interactions. You can tweak any unit into a "balanced" state by having the right MS, hp/cost, burst/sustained DPS. Are roaches, colossi balanced? Sure. But do they represent a hole that they dug themselves into with a lot of other overall decisions? Yes. So would you rather wait 2 more years for them to completely balance Wings of Liberty and then implement the new units so that they have proper balance with the Wings of Liberty units?
No. Given their approach, and possibly willful ignorance, no amount of waiting will balance that.
Did you know that going from ROC to TFT, Blizzard actually scrapped pretty much everything about the older game in terms of core game mechanics (except for heroes/creeping). The way exp was gained, the armor/damage system, everything was overhauled.
You have to be willing to scrap the old stuff if you want to make something great.
|
but... how do we know activision didn't tell blizzard to say this??? what if blizzard is crying out for help? ;O
Mindgames
but anyway, pretty... idk the word, good that they're honest? and that they're bringing to light this unfairness
|
Let's say there's 10 people out of 40 people total that are doing game design. Do you think it takes all 10 people 1 year to make the balance patches that went into SC2?
You don't think that they immediately started drafting HOTS ideas? After all, someone is working on the campaign the whole time?
It's just that they have dug such a huge pit of mobility and timing problems, that it's really hard to introduce something that works. Part of what made BW work was that it was simple. The more layers of complexity you introduce, the more edge cases you get that you have to hammer out.
|
On September 19 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:47 IntoTheEmo wrote:blah, net died for a bit. On September 19 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly. This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc? Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision. Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard. Meh, you could say that mass caster imbalance in WC3: Reign of Chaos was a stupid decision too. But balance is one thing, was it a bad game? Did people sit around in cities all day? People went out and did stuff regardless. Oh yeah, and the arena gear had rating requirements. WoW didn't get its popularity from WoLTK, that's for sure. I guess I meant the complaints from people with common sense. Why shouldn't you have to learn to be better at the game to get the most out of it? You sorta could tell that they were putting in the effort to do things. How many facepalm worthy decisions have they made recently? WoW classes are balanced now, but at the expense of only having 7 talents? And yeah I wasn't saying it WAS Activision, but the timing was pretty good for it and you can't really blame anyone for that. It's sooo much easier to point a finger at the rather questionable Koltick than directly at the company who made the games we used to revere. Most of those issues weren't even balance. What was there to do in Classic WoW except 40 man raids? The entire endgame was 40 man raids. That's why the biggest complaint (apart from servers consistently blowing up and having massive queues) is raid or die. There was no endgame, nothing else to do, except raiding. Arena gear didn't have ratings requirements at first, many still don't. The term welfare epics originated in TBC because arena gear was too easy to get with a 2s team, whereas the raiding gear was a lot harder to get. The "balance" in WoW currently has nothing to do with the new talent system. PvE has been pretty much balanced since WotLK. Talents have nothing to do with it, since everyone who raids had the same talents under the old system anyway, It's a constant. The point is, there was major design flaws with Classic and TBC, just as there are design flaws in WotLK, Cata and MoP. Don't blame Activision, blame Blizzard.
Southshore PvP, essence farming, honor grinding, and alts that didn't powerlevel in a week and get raid geared in two are things that come to mind. There's actually nothing else to do at the moment either, except raiding DS (LFR version for most people) and the same boring dungeons. There is little incentive to do the older content unlike with ZG 1.0, not to mention anything else.
The design flaws in the latter expansions are much more facepalm worthy. They had a good system working up till TBC and yet they feel the need to constantly re-do it for god knows what reason. It's why the bulk of complaints come from post-TBC expansions.
But meh, I'm happy to blame both anyway since Activision apparently isn't well-liked either.
|
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?!
HAHAHAHAHA, oh my....this was precisely the reaction I had xD
|
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net).
|
Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs."
Yeah right.
Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen.
That's how abusive relationships work.
On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net).
Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections.
|
I dont care who's responsible, the fact is that blizzard has become shit at making games.
|
On September 19 2012 03:00 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 19 2012 02:51 architecture wrote:
Let's be honest here, HOTS development is shaping up to be a disaster.
1. In TWO years, they can't figure out what units and direction the game should take. It takes them TWO years to come up with the warhound, only to be scrapped in the first week.
2. They can't figure out what needs to be fixed in the game, and just cop suggestions from pro forum.
3. They are unwilling to overhaul mechanics and old units. If you want to fix a game, you need to look at the whole picture, instead of copy pasting in marauders in other forms. only about half the buyers of the game take multiplayer seriously. to call it a disaster you'd have to see the campaign side of things... you have not. but let's just assume you are correct. if this game is a 'disaster' as you say it is then .. in these slow economy times.. NO ONE WILL BUY IT. problem solved. That's why they are pushing the beta out right now. The game HAS to hit by Christmas, or it won't have good sales. The fact is that SC2 has no mindshare. Most casual players don't care about it, and it doesn't have the same traction as SC1, because there are plenty of other PC games that people can enjoy. And a Zerg ONLY expansion is just going to be less appealing than human only one for the masses.
good point.
that's why Blizzard times all of its releases to occur right before XMas.
|
Hardly an impartial source is it really. Saying otherwise is a sure fire way to lose your job.
|
On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes?
I don't get comments like this. SC2 is inferior to SC1 because the units are less interesting -- it makes for a worse spectator sport IMO. Colossus has nothing on reaver micro i.e., colossus is just an A-move unit. Which most are in the game. I feel like BW required a lot more micro and the units were more interesting. It's not because SC2 is imbalanced comparatively, but because it's more boring to watch and even to play.
And Diablo 3 is basically Diablo 2 with fewer features and a more annoying in-your-face-everyfuckingtime-you-play story.
|
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own
|
On September 19 2012 03:12 IntoTheEmo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:47 IntoTheEmo wrote:blah, net died for a bit. On September 19 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly. This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc? Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision. Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard. Meh, you could say that mass caster imbalance in WC3: Reign of Chaos was a stupid decision too. But balance is one thing, was it a bad game? Did people sit around in cities all day? People went out and did stuff regardless. Oh yeah, and the arena gear had rating requirements. WoW didn't get its popularity from WoLTK, that's for sure. I guess I meant the complaints from people with common sense. Why shouldn't you have to learn to be better at the game to get the most out of it? You sorta could tell that they were putting in the effort to do things. How many facepalm worthy decisions have they made recently? WoW classes are balanced now, but at the expense of only having 7 talents? And yeah I wasn't saying it WAS Activision, but the timing was pretty good for it and you can't really blame anyone for that. It's sooo much easier to point a finger at the rather questionable Koltick than directly at the company who made the games we used to revere. Most of those issues weren't even balance. What was there to do in Classic WoW except 40 man raids? The entire endgame was 40 man raids. That's why the biggest complaint (apart from servers consistently blowing up and having massive queues) is raid or die. There was no endgame, nothing else to do, except raiding. Arena gear didn't have ratings requirements at first, many still don't. The term welfare epics originated in TBC because arena gear was too easy to get with a 2s team, whereas the raiding gear was a lot harder to get. The "balance" in WoW currently has nothing to do with the new talent system. PvE has been pretty much balanced since WotLK. Talents have nothing to do with it, since everyone who raids had the same talents under the old system anyway, It's a constant. The point is, there was major design flaws with Classic and TBC, just as there are design flaws in WotLK, Cata and MoP. Don't blame Activision, blame Blizzard. Southshore PvP, essence farming, honor grinding, and alts that didn't powerlevel in a week and get raid geared in two are things that come to mind. There's actually nothing else to do at the moment either, except raiding DS (LFR version for most people) and the same boring dungeons. There is little incentive to do the older content unlike with ZG 1.0, not to mention anything else. The design flaws in the latter expansions are much more facepalm worthy. They had a good system working up till TBC and yet they feel the need to constantly re-do it for god knows what reason. It's why the bulk of complaints come from post-TBC expansions. But meh, I'm happy to blame both anyway since Activision apparently isn't well-liked either.
Southshore PvP is overrated. World PvP is always a skill-less zergfest, the winner is always dictated by population imbalance. And while were speaking about mistakes, it's a catastrophic error that Blizzard is designing for world PvP in MoP given that faction transfers have made imbalances worse, and that world PvP is a lame, skill-less joke.
The honor system wasn't added until about a year into the game, and was mostly pointless as raid epics were far superior, hence raid or die. You can still farm mats now, just as you can in classic.
Although 2 possible reasons why people had things to do in Classic was that the rep grinds were relentless (if you bothered), and the game was newer, so there was a sense of exploration and less guides and walkthroughs. Although none of this mattered, raiding was where all the epics were and hence the only endgame.
The reason for the new raiding model was to make raiding accessible to casuals, while keeping it just as hard for the top guilds with hard modes. 1% of people saw Naxx. Pretty much everyone can see the content under the new model, but only the top guilds can beat hard modes (T13 doesn't count, it's been out for 1 year). The current system also reduces guild poaching, especially of tanks and healers which was rampant in TBC.
|
On September 19 2012 00:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Oh really? The company they're merged with isn't the Devil because they say so? Interesting...
In all actuality I just think Blizzard has become a poor game making company with terms of customer service and overall gameplay/balance, whether that be because finances or a merger I don't know or speculate on but using this as an example to say Activiision is not bad is a rather poor choice.
Honestly I think Blizzard has always been the same company. Their success is really based on luck. I was reading a few articles about how diablo, warcraft, and starcraft were all developed and in all cases they were kind of in the right place at the right time to either buy the basic idea from someone or just the market and demand made their franchise a mega hit.
The gaming industry is a tough environment and blizzard has a lot of hard working people on their staff who are clearly brilliant. But to have the success that they have had you kind of have to get really lucky. As far as customer service goes, Blizzard has always done it own thing and not really put all their attention on what the player base wants (I don't think any company does really, nor does any company have the giant player base that Blizzard does, its unprecedented to some degree). The only exception would be with World of Warcraft because they often pay attention and make changes in that game based on what people want (even for the worse).
Lately I would say their biggest success has been just World of Warcraft in terms of originality and sales and changing the market. That game was revolutionary. Now with its 5th(?) expansion coming out, it looks dated and boring and stale and seems just another way to milk that money farm. Diablo 3 was disappointing to all really; its still such an amazing product, its a thing of beauty, but it isn't groundbreaking in terms of new ideas. It just failed to give us what we wanted. Starcraft 2 is a semi success. Its a great game and we all love it but because BW set the bar so high, SC 2 just seems like the ugly step child between the two. Don't get me wrong, I love all Blizzard games, but they got lucky with Diablo 2, WoW and BW and their sequels have not been so lucky in terms of living up to the "legendary" games of our time.
They still make great, quality games. But the expectations of their games are so extremely high I think we get a sense of entitlement to the greatest game ever every time the release something new. That's kind of impossible to do... Maybe we should rethink how and what we demand from Blizzard.
Where else can you find a company that is as loyal to making our games than Blizzard? They do listen to us, sometimes, and they are devoted to continue to give us pretty amazing games. Just watch an interview of any of the devs, they are so passionate about their job.
So in conclusion, I think Blizzard hasn't been the ones who have changed, a quick look at their history can tell you that. We have changed, in respect to what we expect and how we view their games when they don't live up to that expectation.
|
On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections.
Really? Doesn't have shit on WoW?
Compare to the PvP of the two games. GW2 has a three way world versus world versus world battles, what the hell does WoW have to even match that in scale? Small AV battles that nobody queues up for anymore?
Leveling is a lot more fun in GW2. There are huge bosses in the world fairly often in the game and it's not about level racing. People race to level in WoW because the leveling content is really bad and boring. GW2 does it right because you can level however you want. You can explore and level, you can craft and level, you can just go from boss to boss and skip all the quests if you want to level.
And it's still faster in leveling than WoW -- and much more enjoyable paced.
The only thing WoW has on GW2 is dungeon content and endgame PvE content. That's it. Everything else GW2 does far better, and is overall a much better MMO.
Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help.
|
On September 19 2012 01:36 DDie wrote:
We can see that on how polished Diablo 3 was at release, they weren't rushed by activision in the slightest.
They might have been rushed by the fans aswell. God knows my friend was talking about quitting our raiding guild to play Diablo 3 "as soon as it comes out" two expansions ago.
|
On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own
I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams.
The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away.
And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity.
|
On September 19 2012 02:29 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:26 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 02:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 02:18 Endymion wrote:
I'm really starting to think that blizzard isn't getting worse, we're all just getting older... d3 is pretty close to what d2 from a casual perspective imo. same with WoW, i raided sunwell along with 25m icc and i think they were pretty equivilant in difficulty, i was just elitist at the time because i wanted to be cool.. but honestly, we all started played these 'old blizz games' atleast 8 years ago, think of the person that you were 8 years ago compared to now.. do you really enjoy the same things? i wasn't even thinking about relating to bodies with vaginas 8 years ago and now it takes precedent over games, that alone signals that my lack of enjoyment is just growing up.. D2 didn't milk the playerbase with a RMAH, which destroyed the entire point of playing the game, Playing with RMAH is your choice. If you feel the need to use it to feel accomplished while playing, you're doing gaming wrong. The only possible use I'll give the RMAH is sell something so I can buy moar games :D Too bad Blizzard balanced drops around RMAH. Go grind D2 for an hour and you'll have at least one character+stash full of set items and uniques. You're lucky to find one decent item in 10 hours of farming D3.
Really? I never got nearly that many. Except the low level stuff like Sigon's. Rose-tinted glasses strike again I think.
|
On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity.
I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did)
|
On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help.
agree on that (no clue about gw2, gw was fun tho). addons are shit and made playing feel like staring at stupid excel.
no question some stuff was needed(but couldve been added by blizz as well) but the game became a spreadsheet with a bit of fantasy stuff behind it at both high level pve and pvp.
|
On September 19 2012 03:41 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help. agree on that (no clue about gw2, gw was fun tho). addons are shit and made playing feel like staring at stupid excel. no question some stuff was needed(but couldve been added by blizz as well) but the game became a spreadsheet with a bit of fantasy stuff behind it at both high level pve and pvp.
Oh I loved recount damage battles on bosses hahaha
Topping the rogues list was always awesome since PvE with rogue was pretty intense in some encounters
|
So it's not Activision thats turning Blizzard to shit, its Blizzard.
|
On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Really? Doesn't have shit on WoW? Compare to the PvP of the two games. GW2 has a three way world versus world versus world battles, what the hell does WoW have to even match that in scale? Small AV battles that nobody queues up for anymore? Leveling is a lot more fun in GW2. There are huge bosses in the world fairly often in the game and it's not about level racing. People race to level in WoW because the leveling content is really bad and boring. GW2 does it right because you can level however you want. You can explore and level, you can craft and level, you can just go from boss to boss and skip all the quests if you want to level. And it's still faster in leveling than WoW -- and much more enjoyable paced. The only thing WoW has on GW2 is dungeon content and endgame PvE content. That's it. Everything else GW2 does far better, and is overall a much better MMO. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help.
The WvWvW system, like any form of mass PvP cannot be taken seriously because large scale PvP is always a skill-less zergfest.
Leveling? Is there anything more inconsequential, transient, and ultimately irrelevant? No one cares about leveling. Even if leveling up in GW2 is greatest fun you've ever had in a video game, it doesn't matter. Once you've done it, it's all about the endgame.
Addons have been in WoW since day 1. Damage meters are fun.
|
On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did)
I've never played D3 and never will.
I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions:
1. Why play D3?
2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH?
In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place.
To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't.
|
On September 19 2012 03:58 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did) I've never played D3 and never will. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions: 1. Why play D3? 2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH? In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place. To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't.
How about just beating the game?
But besides that, hardcore - no rmah.
|
On September 19 2012 03:41 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help. agree on that (no clue about gw2, gw was fun tho). addons are shit and made playing feel like staring at stupid excel. no question some stuff was needed(but couldve been added by blizz as well) but the game became a spreadsheet with a bit of fantasy stuff behind it at both high level pve and pvp.
People did not stop playing wow because of addons. You never HAD to play with addons either, people just used it because it was convenient and allowed you to predict situations better if you couldnt already. As far as I know tbc and wotlk were pretty succesful even tho it was addon galore during that time, while now you dont need addons at all (you never really did), but there is a declining player base.
Id say stats say something completely different. Addons did not ruin wow, it had nothing to do with it.
|
On September 19 2012 03:58 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did) I've never played D3 and never will. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions: 1. Why play D3? 2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH? In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place. To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't.
Oh you haven't played the game, now I understand.
I find it fun, I ignore the RMAH, and I wouldn't spend a single dime on an item.
I play the game to have fun, if the game were boring, I wouldn't play, luckily it isn't
I mean, sure, if you think the RMAH is destructive and you refuse to play because of it, I guess that's fine, but there's no bashing the game without playing it.
|
On September 19 2012 04:05 []Phase[] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:41 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help. agree on that (no clue about gw2, gw was fun tho). addons are shit and made playing feel like staring at stupid excel. no question some stuff was needed(but couldve been added by blizz as well) but the game became a spreadsheet with a bit of fantasy stuff behind it at both high level pve and pvp. People did not stop playing wow because of addons. You never HAD to play with addons either, people just used it because it was convenient and allowed you to predict situations better if you couldnt already. As far as I know tbc and wotlk were pretty succesful even tho it was addon galore during that time, while now you dont need addons at all (you never really did), but there is a declining player base. Id say stats say something completely different. Addons did not ruin wow, it had nothing to do with it.
In fact, I used fewer and fewer addons as time went on, despite doing ever more difficult raid content. Blizzard's basic UI initially ignored a lot of very important info, that they've gradually started to implement by default.
|
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?!
Ironically enough, Blizzard isn't thinking intelligently in the business/money sense. Funny. The only reason they would do this is if they're incompetent or really love Activision. Either way we've lost out on the company that Blizzard used to be.
|
On September 19 2012 04:04 serum321 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did) I've never played D3 and never will. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions: 1. Why play D3? 2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH? In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place. To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't. How about just beating the game? But besides that, hardcore - no rmah.
What is the point of beating a pointless game?
Consider WoW. You cannot beat the game in WoW. WoW is mostly a well-designed game. It is very rewarding, many people cannot beat the hardest heroic encounters, have the highest ilvl gear, top the damage meters on WOL, be in the best guilds on the server, top the arena rankings etc. All of these things make the game rewarding and fun, so it is not pointless.
Diablo 3 is none of these things, so why would I want to beat the game. And if I beat the game, then what? Why should I start putting effort and time into a game that is essentially a, 20(?) hours run to the end boss, after which I have no motivation to play further? Millions of people beat the game, so what's so special about that? What's so fun about it? What's the point of playing beyond that?
In order for me to put time and effort into a game it should: (1) be a fun and well-designed game, (2) be rewarding, (3) be fair, no pay to win and no pay for a small advantage, (4) be a game that I intend to spend significant time playing, no point in half-arsing it. Otherwise, I don't see why I should bother.
|
Even if this was true, why would blizzard ever release a statement stating their parent company which has controlling interest is the reason why their recent products are crap?
Edit: whoops wrong way around but even so, no reason to denounce your subsidiary for making you do bad decisions
|
On September 19 2012 04:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 04:04 serum321 wrote:On September 19 2012 03:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did) I've never played D3 and never will. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions: 1. Why play D3? 2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH? In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place. To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't. How about just beating the game? But besides that, hardcore - no rmah. What is the point of beating a pointless game? If we consider WoW, WoW can't be beat. WoW is mostly a well-designed game. It is very rewarding. many people cannot beat the hardest heroic encounters, have the highest ilvl gear, top the damage meters on WOL, be in the best guilds on the server, top the arena rankings etc. All of these things make the game rewarding and fun, so it is not pointless. Diablo 3 is none of these things, so why would I want to beat the game. And I if beat the game, then what? Why should I start putting effort and time into a game that is essentially a, 20(?) hours run to the end boss, after which I have no motivation to play further?
You sound like someone who wants to achieve something greater in life by playing games, the only reason to play any games at all is to have fun, if you don't have fun then I agree there's no point to playing. I will play D3 until it isn't fun anymore, and by now the $60 have been very well played with fun moments playing.
|
People must not realize that these amazing games took more than 10 years of patching...
Which must somehow mean that they weren't perfect before...
|
On September 19 2012 04:14 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 04:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 04:04 serum321 wrote:On September 19 2012 03:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:41 mordk wrote:On September 19 2012 03:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 D10 wrote:
Blizzard is telling the truth, they have become incompetent on their own I would agree. Although I would only apply this to their B.net and D3 teams. The B.net team is the epiphany of incompetence, mediocrity and regression. They have no new ideas, and have created arguably the worse online platform in the last several years, adding nothing new, only taking things away. And also their D3 team who made a bunch of amateur design errors that not even D2 made. And turned the game into a pointless profiteering opportunity. I still don't understand how RMAH ruins the game, why do you play D3? (or did) I've never played D3 and never will. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Consider the following 2 questions: 1. Why play D3? 2. If I play D3, can I just ignore the RMAH? In order to ask question 2, you must first ask question 1. The answer to question 1 is, there is no reason to play D3. The game is pointless. Therefore, question 2 is moot and irrelevant. Question 2 doesn't matter, because there's no reason to play in the first place. To see why the answer to question 1 is that the game is pointless, consider what the point of D3 ultimately is. To make a character with good gear? Why bother, you can just buy the best gear with real money. To farm for good gear? Why bother, you can just buy it for real money. To collect good gear? Again, anyone can buy the best gear for real money. To kill Inferno Diablo without using the RMAH? Why? What is the point of gear? Is the point of the game to beat people in PvP? There's no PvP, but if there was, again people who buy the best gear would win. Every possible reason to play D3 is defeated by the point that anyone can buy the best gear off the RMAH. Therefore, there's no reason to play the game in the first place, and hence no reason to ask question 2. The game is pointless, it would be a waste of my time to play such a pointless game, so I don't. How about just beating the game? But besides that, hardcore - no rmah. What is the point of beating a pointless game? If we consider WoW, WoW can't be beat. WoW is mostly a well-designed game. It is very rewarding. many people cannot beat the hardest heroic encounters, have the highest ilvl gear, top the damage meters on WOL, be in the best guilds on the server, top the arena rankings etc. All of these things make the game rewarding and fun, so it is not pointless. Diablo 3 is none of these things, so why would I want to beat the game. And I if beat the game, then what? Why should I start putting effort and time into a game that is essentially a, 20(?) hours run to the end boss, after which I have no motivation to play further? You sound like someone who wants to achieve something greater in life by playing games, the only reason to play any games at all is to have fun, if you don't have fun then I agree there's no point to playing. I will play D3 until it isn't fun anymore, and by now the $60 have been very well played with fun moments playing.
There are many ways to have "fun", arguing with people on the forums is (usually) fun, making money is fun, watching SC2 tournaments etc.
|
Blizzard always has fucked up things in their games in the past but people have very selective memories regarding that. It's fine that you find the things that Blizzard does 'not okay' but don't say stuff that they were oh so much better in the earlier days when it cames to things like polish and stuff. If you read into it, or even remember it yourself if you're old enough then you knew Starcraft at launch was a trainwreck and it took months for the gamebreaking bugs to be fixed.
I'm sick of the people who say the old Blizzard was so much better and totally forget that the games they come to love went through a lot of patching to become that good.
|
On September 19 2012 02:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:18 Djzapz wrote:On September 19 2012 01:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 19 2012 01:10 Sated wrote: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? 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. You're so obnoxious -_- I'm glad you edited out the part where you were saying you weren't arguing anything ^^ It was kinda cute.
Well, he wasn't arguing anything, he was obviously dissing those 3 MOBA games, and you barged in here talking about how his opinion about games isn't objective. I misread the quote as mine though.
But you really are obnoxious =_=
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On September 19 2012 04:16 Kazahk wrote:
People must not realize that these amazing games took more than 10 years of patching...
Which must somehow mean that they weren't perfect before...
This argument has proved pointless and is way overused. The fact is that the old games were fun as hell even with the bugs and issues that they had at launch. It did not take ten years of patching for them to be fun. They were fun right away. I bought Diablo 1, SC, and WC3 at launch and played them non stop without being bored or thinking the game had become repetitive. SC2 and D3 really fail to deliver in the fun department. SC2 only has me still because of the players in the Korean scene. But I will not be buying hots and I have given up on blizzard. I disliked playing SC2 so much I won't buy the sequel. However I still may watch because of the people that play. But even that future is iffy. I played through D3 and was impressed with how bored I got after beating the first two difficulties. It was just a grind fest of boredom with no more wow moments at that point. As for WOW, I joined in BC expansion and loved what the game had to offer. But MoP patch has dumbed the game down a lot. It's not as social as it used to be either. I think WOW as a whole is an amazing game up to this point and Cata was still worth it to me, but I can't defend MoP.
|
People just want someone to blame when they don't like a game. It's the same with EA, even though they just publish the damn game.
|
On September 19 2012 03:41 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 03:20 Euronyme wrote:Imo the guy just sounds like a beaten and submissive wife. "Oh, nonono officer, it wasn't him, I fell down a flight of stairs." Yeah right. Activision has time and time again raped cod and its customers for money, and when an abusive rapist wants his little sex slave in the basement (blizzard) to say that everything is bliz's fault he'll make it happen. That's how abusive relationships work. On September 19 2012 03:17 Deadlyhazard wrote:
So Blizzard is just a bad developer, they're not even under pressure by Activision like previously thought? Wow. They have some really, really untalented devs working there....they need to study hard and improve their game if they want to keep up with what other developers are crafting these days (look at Valve and Arena Net). Let's be honest here.. Arena net hasn't got shit on wow. You can't even tell what attack speed you have in guild wars, there's no support for addons and the game is shit in every way apart from the lore and 'oooh pretty forest' sections. Add-ons ruined WoW. WoW is focused on seeing how much DPS you have, how fast your cast bars are going, how much your UI is telling you to avoid stuff. GW2 focuses on the actual game, and is much more immersive in its content. Custom UI sucks. You can't cheat GW2 like you can in WoW with UI help. agree on that (no clue about gw2, gw was fun tho). addons are shit and made playing feel like staring at stupid excel. no question some stuff was needed(but couldve been added by blizz as well) but the game became a spreadsheet with a bit of fantasy stuff behind it at both high level pve and pvp.
I'm confused. If you don't like looking at recount numbers, then don't use the addon.
|
On September 19 2012 03:48 BlackPanther wrote:
So it's not Activision thats turning Blizzard to shit, its Blizzard.
lolol.. pretty much how I read this...
|
With the fall from grace of Blizzard and Bioware, all I have left to rely on is Valve.
Comeonnnnn HL3.
|
On September 19 2012 03:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes? I don't get comments like this. SC2 is inferior to SC1 because the units are less interesting -- it makes for a worse spectator sport IMO. Colossus has nothing on reaver micro i.e., colossus is just an A-move unit. Which most are in the game. I feel like BW required a lot more micro and the units were more interesting. It's not because SC2 is imbalanced comparatively, but because it's more boring to watch and even to play. And Diablo 3 is basically Diablo 2 with fewer features and a more annoying in-your-face-everyfuckingtime-you-play story.
i agree Brood War is a better game.
nothing is stopping you from playing Brood War.
does this mean Blizzard, as it is today, is an absolute total disaster.
nope.
does this mean SC1 is a software engineering masterpiece?
no.
does this mean that on the day SC1 was released that it was a competitive tour de force? no.
the "chicken little sky is falling" posts directed at Blizzard will not allow the company to improve because it is not constructive criticism.
|
Hmm, interesting. Of course, I didn't expect them to say "hey, we're Vivendi-Universal's bitch", nonetheless, it's always cool to hear about the devs' point of view.
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On September 19 2012 04:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes? I don't get comments like this. SC2 is inferior to SC1 because the units are less interesting -- it makes for a worse spectator sport IMO. Colossus has nothing on reaver micro i.e., colossus is just an A-move unit. Which most are in the game. I feel like BW required a lot more micro and the units were more interesting. It's not because SC2 is imbalanced comparatively, but because it's more boring to watch and even to play. And Diablo 3 is basically Diablo 2 with fewer features and a more annoying in-your-face-everyfuckingtime-you-play story. i agree Brood War is a better game. nothing is stopping you from playing Brood War. does this mean Blizzard, as it is today, is an absolute total disaster. nope. does this mean SC1 is a software engineering masterpiece? no. does this mean that on the day SC1 was released that it was a competitive tour de force? no. the "chicken little sky is falling" posts directed at Blizzard will not allow the company to improve because it is not constructive criticism.
- nothing is stopping us from playing Brood War: True, but I want to play a new equally good RTS
- Starcraft 2 is stopping us from playing SC2: True. I want to play SC2 but they made the game dull to play. Therefore I cannot play it until Blizzard fixes SC2.
|
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. Their goes there only excuse for garbage content.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
In my humble opinion, Starcraft was the best game released. It invented Esports. Starcraft 2 was a good game, but It was not on par with Brood War. The Korean pro players started moving to SC2 after about 2 years after the game was released. The units are not as fun as in the original game, and the variety of strategies is much lower than in the original game. There were more viable ways to play in the original BroodWar. Moreover, although the game was designed to be an Esport, it has some lacking features still. Blizzard should learn a thing or two from Valve, because they managed to do what they could not.
Game Starcraft SC2 Dota2
Storyline brilliant decent none
Metagame Diversity very good good good
Team support no no yes
Recconect function no no yes
LAN yes no to be implemented
User submitted content little yes little
Multiplayer interface 1998 technology good good
Casual gaming good very good decent
Replay availabilty no no yes
Supporting the pro scene no no the banners in TI2 was the first direct way to support
a pro team you were cheering for
Function to watch any game no no yes
As an old Starcraft fain, it pains me to see what Starcraft 2 could have been and should have been if they catered more towards the things that make a game worth watching. I still play SC2 because it is a great game, but it could have been better.
|
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?!
Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so.
Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
|
Hmmm I dont understand why everyone is so mad at Blizzard. Yes D3 was fairly bad but having 2 of your 3 studios be awesome is pretty good.
There biggest money maker MMO is still the best MMO on the market even in a down expansion and is looking like they got there mojo back in time for mists which means that dev team is doing just fine.
You have another team which made one of the best if not the best RTS of all time in SC2 (if i keep putting hours into it at this rate itll be my most played game ever). They are also working on HotS which while I am hesistant to judge since its just in beta does look to have some awesome things to it.
Then there is the D3 team which frankly just dropped the ball. Ill be honest I dont know what they did for all those years to release something so lackluster but I know to avoid that team in the future if they are working on anything.
Then you have the secretive project titan team that while I have no idea what kind of MMO they are working on (I refuse to believe blizzard would want 2 competing monthly MMOs on market) but considering they have a lot of old wow team (for better or worse) they are probably going to come out with something pretty good.
|
On September 19 2012 04:52 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 04:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes? I don't get comments like this. SC2 is inferior to SC1 because the units are less interesting -- it makes for a worse spectator sport IMO. Colossus has nothing on reaver micro i.e., colossus is just an A-move unit. Which most are in the game. I feel like BW required a lot more micro and the units were more interesting. It's not because SC2 is imbalanced comparatively, but because it's more boring to watch and even to play. And Diablo 3 is basically Diablo 2 with fewer features and a more annoying in-your-face-everyfuckingtime-you-play story. i agree Brood War is a better game. nothing is stopping you from playing Brood War. does this mean Blizzard, as it is today, is an absolute total disaster. nope. does this mean SC1 is a software engineering masterpiece? no. does this mean that on the day SC1 was released that it was a competitive tour de force? no. the "chicken little sky is falling" posts directed at Blizzard will not allow the company to improve because it is not constructive criticism. - nothing is stopping us from playing Brood War: True, but I want to play a new equally good RTS - Starcraft 2 is stopping us from playing SC2: True. I want to play SC2 but they made the game dull to play. Therefore I cannot play it until Blizzard fixes SC2.
the MOD Kit is available.
almost everyone i know who owns WC3 didn't buy it to play WC3, they bought it to play DOTA.
nothing is stopping an innovative community drive to build a better competitive RTS with the SC2 Mod Kit as its foundation...
in the way DOTA was born from WC3.
|
That just means that Blizzard sucks, not Activision, which is even worse!
|
On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it.
|
On September 19 2012 05:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 04:52 BisuDagger wrote:On September 19 2012 04:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 19 2012 03:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the complaint of releasing "half completed titles" is a smear job complaint you can make about any piece of software ever made. all you do is define "complete-ness" as including some feature that was not in the game on release. the core SC2 game was a lot closer to balanced than SC1 was when it was released. as has been documented on many occasions the SC1 engine is an horrific monstrosity requiring continuous bug fixes. some people should check out what ex-employees said about Adham's management of Blizzard/Chaos/Silicon&Synapse from 1997 to 1999. it was hardly nirvana. the bottom line is that out of all companies who make competitive RTS games Blizzard continues to offer the best post sales support of any company by a huge margin. who wants to play some Red Alert 3? or maybe some Company of Heroes? I don't get comments like this. SC2 is inferior to SC1 because the units are less interesting -- it makes for a worse spectator sport IMO. Colossus has nothing on reaver micro i.e., colossus is just an A-move unit. Which most are in the game. I feel like BW required a lot more micro and the units were more interesting. It's not because SC2 is imbalanced comparatively, but because it's more boring to watch and even to play. And Diablo 3 is basically Diablo 2 with fewer features and a more annoying in-your-face-everyfuckingtime-you-play story. i agree Brood War is a better game. nothing is stopping you from playing Brood War. does this mean Blizzard, as it is today, is an absolute total disaster. nope. does this mean SC1 is a software engineering masterpiece? no. does this mean that on the day SC1 was released that it was a competitive tour de force? no. the "chicken little sky is falling" posts directed at Blizzard will not allow the company to improve because it is not constructive criticism. - nothing is stopping us from playing Brood War: True, but I want to play a new equally good RTS - Starcraft 2 is stopping us from playing SC2: True. I want to play SC2 but they made the game dull to play. Therefore I cannot play it until Blizzard fixes SC2. the MOD Kit is available. almost everyone i know who owns WC3 didn't buy it to play WC3, they bought it to play DOTA. nothing is stopping an innovative community drive to build a better competitive RTS with the SC2 Mod Kit as its foundation... in the way DOTA was born from WC3.
DOTA was completely different from WC3's regular game. There's no way SC2's pro scene could be consolidated into a different "1v1 melee" mode.
|
On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it.
That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry.
|
On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
Are you serious? There have been numerous RTS titles that are better/equal to SC2. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. And WoW was successful for many reasons outside of it's gameplay and atm GW2 seems to be outdoing it in terms of quality.
Each of Blizzard's recent releases has been a severe downgrade on it's respective series. When Blizzard is incapable of making sequals that actually IMPROVE on the games, then yes, they deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
|
On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry.
Yeah! your opinion isn't the same as his so tough luck!
|
On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry.
It takes much more than a good game to create a successful competitive scene. SC2's competitive scene is largely riding off of the BW / WC3 scenes which has nothing to do with Blizzard or the quality of SC2. TA and early DOW were much better than SC2.
|
On September 19 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry. It takes much more than a good game to create a successful competitive scene. SC2's competitive scene is largely riding off of the BW / WC3 scenes which has nothing to do with Blizzard or the quality of SC2. TA and early DOW were much better than SC2.
And yet, would the competitive scene really be as huge as it is for sc2 if the game was so bad? Come on now....
|
On September 19 2012 05:15 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry. It takes much more than a good game to create a successful competitive scene. SC2's competitive scene is largely riding off of the BW / WC3 scenes which has nothing to do with Blizzard or the quality of SC2. TA and early DOW were much better than SC2. And yet, would the competitive scene really be as huge as it is for sc2 if the game was so bad? Come on now....
"ehem" League of Legend.
|
On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. Are you serious? There have been numerous RTS titles that are better/equal to SC2. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. And WoW was successful for many reasons outside of it's gameplay and atm GW2 seems to be outdoing it in terms of quality. Each of Blizzard's recent releases has been a severe downgrade on it's respective series. When Blizzard is incapable of making sequals that actually IMPROVE on the games, then yes, they deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
The only RTS I can think that is actually better than SC2 in terms of raw quality, presentation, etc, is CoH, and we all know what an exeptional game that is. Personal preference is a different thing.
As for D3, there's no such thing as utter failure when millions of people play your game. People who argue this mostly are D2 widows who wanted D2 again. The truth is regardless of how much shit it gets the game is fun and does OK in its genre. Torchlight is as serious a competitor to D3 as SWTOR was to WoW, and we all know how that went. Plus WoW is OLD as fuck, it's about time a worthy competitor arrived, GW2 is cool.
Basically, they're not doing THAT bad, the problem with Blizz is it's ran out of games to try their art on, as in, there's no more genres they like that they can improve and polish upon, that's what Blizz does, they have NEVER been known for their creativity and flair.
|
On September 19 2012 05:18 jidolboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:15 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry. It takes much more than a good game to create a successful competitive scene. SC2's competitive scene is largely riding off of the BW / WC3 scenes which has nothing to do with Blizzard or the quality of SC2. TA and early DOW were much better than SC2. And yet, would the competitive scene really be as huge as it is for sc2 if the game was so bad? Come on now.... "ehem" League of Legend.
That is a good point, I'll give you that xD.
|
On September 19 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:43 IntoTheEmo wrote:
It's also in the timing, WotLK came out shortly after the merger, which was when all the WoW complaints started.
Either way, their actions speak for themselves, they aren't the same company anymore regardless. From WoW alone: the scrapping of the promised water instance for a rushed end game Dragon Soul, the reworking of talents to be similar to D3, how they managed to break the default UI in 5.0, how we got 2 crappily redone troll instances as 4.1 content for months... I realize people make mistakes, but the number of questionable decisions they've made that make you want to go "honestly, why do that for?" is staggering over the recent years.
I mean, did we really need Farmville/Pokemon in WoW? Did we need a BNet GUI on SC2 that looks like it was designed for console? Do we really need chat chan- oh wait.
Not to mention that they managed to disrespect their own game in that OSL broadcast. That was disgusting.
I could go on forever complaining, but yeah, there'll always be people who'll defend Blizzard. I've always joked about how Blizzard would still break sales records if they sold an empty game box. I feel that they're abusing their brand name to its maximum right now, releasing games as if they were still in beta - MoP won't be released with cross realm zones (?), SC2 was released without chat channels, D3 was released without PvP. Yeah their games in the past were missing a few features/had bugs/were imbalanced, but you don't really feel that they've blatantly allowed that to happen. That's what's annoying about them right now. That's why we're so quick to blame it on Activision.
Ah well, back to WC3. With my nostalgia glasses on, clearly. This is the kind of scapegoating and selective memory I'm talking about. The complaints started in WotLK? Really? Did you ever play WoW in Classic and TBC? Remember raid or die, world of roguecraft, welfare epics from arenas, complaints that the game was too hard, waiting for months as Blizzard "balanced" classes at the rate of 1-2 per patch, honor system being nothing but a mindless and skill-less grind, AP-PoM-Pyro, dying in 1 global, etc? Blizzard has made a lot of stupid and moronic decisions before Activision and a lot of stupid and moronic decisions after Activision. Stop using Activision as a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs -- Blizzard.
I think it's been obvious that Blizzard is in charge to any one paying attention, I also don't see this massive decline in quality that everyone else seems to be experiencing. For me, some of the games have shifted focus (WoW, Diablo, and even SC have all done this) where it doesn't always work as well for me as the original. SC2 has been a hit for me, Diablo 3 was fun but didn't provide nearly as much as a time sink for me while WoW passed me by back after Burning Crusade dumbed down raiding to mostly eliminate 40 man groups (yeah I know they were hard, but fuck if I want some idiot with arena points to be getting gear equal to a boss I encountered halfway through the final 25 BT encounter).
At any rate, it is Blizzard and I think they do a good job of evolving their games which is why I'll be buying the D3 expo, HOTS and whatever their new MMO is (when it comes out in 2 years). Some of the games, like MoP, don't interest me any more but.... they can't all be winners and I just have far less time than I used to when I first started games.
To me Blizzard still is one of the leaders in the industry, and listens to and addresses most of gamer's complaints... even if we don't always like the response. I don't know how many other developers I could say that about.
|
I'm not going to bash Blizzard with how SC2 turned out gameplay wise compared to BW. I mean, there are some units/mechanics that I strongly question but even then, I think BW was a bit of a miracle in terms of gameplay. I really don't see it ever being matched unless SC2 is drastically overhauled (get rid of deathballs for all of the races, introduce units that reward good micro/control, etc) and even then it could be hit or miss.
For me, the biggest problem is Blizzard's approach to Battle.Net. They took a complete step backwards with it and then fumbled around for the past two years trying to bring it up to an acceptable state (failing to do so). I could have appreciated the game a lot more if they had taken what worked from BW/WC3 and built on it. This just seems like something a good developer would have gotten correct right off the bat (see Dota 2) as this is purely functional development (as opposed to trying to make the game 'fun').
The current league system is utterly stupid (ladder should be based on a transparent ELO/ICCUP-style system).
The custom game system has left me rarely playing customs.
There is no sense of community when I play.
Why the hell can't I see how many games I've lost? Or which matchup/map I need to work on?
Tournaments?
The quote's pretty funny though.
|
On September 19 2012 05:19 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. Are you serious? There have been numerous RTS titles that are better/equal to SC2. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. And WoW was successful for many reasons outside of it's gameplay and atm GW2 seems to be outdoing it in terms of quality. Each of Blizzard's recent releases has been a severe downgrade on it's respective series. When Blizzard is incapable of making sequals that actually IMPROVE on the games, then yes, they deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. The only RTS I can think that is actually better than SC2 in terms of raw quality, presentation, etc, is CoH, and we all know what an exeptional game that is. Personal preference is a different thing. As for D3, there's no such thing as utter failure when millions of people play your game. People who argue this mostly are D2 widows who wanted D2 again. The truth is regardless of how much shit it gets the game is fun and does OK in its genre. Torchlight is as serious a competitor to D3 as SWTOR was to WoW, and we all know how that went. Plus WoW is OLD as fuck, it's about time a worthy competitor arrived, GW2 is cool. Basically, they're not doing THAT bad, the problem with Blizz is it's ran out of games to try their art on, as in, there's no more genres they like that they can improve and polish upon, that's what Blizz does, they have NEVER been known for their creativity and flair.
I definitely agree with you except for the point "they have NEVER been known for their creativity and flair." That just isn't true, because what they do do is innovate within a genre in terms of integrated systems and executions just because Porsche didn't invent the wheel doesn't make their cars not "creative" or possessive of "flair".
WoW, and Starcraft blew me away even though I'd tried similar games in the genre, meanwhile Diablo has been a genre that Blizzard really created all on their own and which they are trying to turn into something new with D3 (whether they will succeed or not is something else).
|
On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it.
I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please.
http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/
|
On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late.
The fact that you need pair starcraft 2 with brood war and diablo 3 with diablo 2 shows how poor your argument is.
The people that made starcraft 1 and diablo 2 are for the most part gone. To bundle these games with their respective sequels and ask "whats better than this?" is completely unfair and yes I can list better RTS games than SC2 and I can name better action rpgs than diablo 3.
On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/
How much money something makes is not a direct indicator of how good the product actually is. Diablo 3 made a lot of money yes. It also made all of that money before word got out about what the game was actually like.
|
On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/
How is that relevant? The game was released in an unfinished state and it was painfuly obvious. The game was released with massive flaws and it was painfuly obvious. There is still no PvP for crying out loud..
|
this thread is funny lol
also, sold copies =/= good game
|
On September 19 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:07 AnomalySC2 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:05 Serpico wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. total annihilation is easily better than SC 2 and so are the early DOW games. Diablo 3?? Path of Exile and Torchlight 2, you can't just say we can't say something simply because your narrow opinion is so strong you don't want to hear it. That's cool, but i don't see any shows dedicated to professional total annihilation or DOW games. It's a fact that those aren't nearly as good as Starcraft, sorry. It takes much more than a good game to create a successful competitive scene. SC2's competitive scene is largely riding off of the BW / WC3 scenes which has nothing to do with Blizzard or the quality of SC2. TA and early DOW were much better than SC2.
TA seems like it'd have too much automation to make a good competitive RTS. DOW might have done, but it seems too similar to WC3 to compete with SC2. SC 1 and 2 were brilliant because they were basically "what if we remade C&C RA with a 3rd faction, and they were all actually balanced".
|
On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/
I...what? That has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Stop with this irrelevant statement, please.
www.yougotpwned.com
On September 19 2012 05:43 stormssc wrote:
this thread is funny lol
also, sold copies =/= good game
^^this
|
On September 19 2012 05:37 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. The fact that you need pair starcraft 2 with brood war and diablo 3 with diablo 2 shows how poor your argument is. The people that made starcraft 1 and diablo 2 are for the most part gone. To bundle these games with their respective sequels and ask "whats better than this?" is completely unfair and yes I can list better RTS games than SC2 and I can name better action rpgs than diablo 3. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ How much money something makes is not a direct indicator of how good the product actually is. Diablo 3 made a lot of money yes. It also made all of that money before word got out about what the game was actually like.
I'm sure it was somewhat disappointing, but utter failure? You'd need something like the TORtanic to merit that description.
|
What if Activision is REALLY ordering Blizzard what to do, and that article was actually one of Activision's orders?
|
On September 19 2012 05:55 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:37 omnic wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. The fact that you need pair starcraft 2 with brood war and diablo 3 with diablo 2 shows how poor your argument is. The people that made starcraft 1 and diablo 2 are for the most part gone. To bundle these games with their respective sequels and ask "whats better than this?" is completely unfair and yes I can list better RTS games than SC2 and I can name better action rpgs than diablo 3. On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ How much money something makes is not a direct indicator of how good the product actually is. Diablo 3 made a lot of money yes. It also made all of that money before word got out about what the game was actually like. I'm sure it was somewhat disappointing, but utter failure? You'd need something like the TORtanic to merit that description.
I would say that diablo 3 was a utter failure. Maybe not as bad as TORtanic but then again you don't get to decide what utter failure means for the rest of us.
|
Btw, I think wow vanilla is the best wow that ever was, when they introduced honor the game went to shit, and Blizzard went downhill from there.
All you guys claiming TBC was the best expansion, you are the ones responsible for Blizzards downfall, you supported their mediocrity to its fullest, and do so till today even tho you complain.
|
Still hate activision. Starting to dislike blizzard (sometime after D3 and crap job on SC2 design/balance) . My hope is in the indies/open sourcers.
|
I can't think of any good reason for releasing this.
You really think that only one guy or one shadowy room of executives is responsible for every fuck-up? Really?
No, I never believed one guy or one shadowy room of executives (nice hyperbole) was responsible for every fuck-up. I believed they were responsible for several, big, fuck-ups though.
Whatever Activision probably mandated they release this statement and others like it.
AND IF THEY DIDN'T that's even worse. It just means Blizzard is actually bringing it's parent company down by releasing garbage products. I know I haven't touched anything Activision related in years because of things that were supposedly Blizzard's fault all along?
|
On September 19 2012 05:59 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:55 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:37 omnic wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. The fact that you need pair starcraft 2 with brood war and diablo 3 with diablo 2 shows how poor your argument is. The people that made starcraft 1 and diablo 2 are for the most part gone. To bundle these games with their respective sequels and ask "whats better than this?" is completely unfair and yes I can list better RTS games than SC2 and I can name better action rpgs than diablo 3. On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ How much money something makes is not a direct indicator of how good the product actually is. Diablo 3 made a lot of money yes. It also made all of that money before word got out about what the game was actually like. I'm sure it was somewhat disappointing, but utter failure? You'd need something like the TORtanic to merit that description. I would say that diablo 3 was a utter failure. Maybe not as bad as TORtanic but then again you don't get to decide what utter failure means for the rest of us.
I suppose, I can't account for personal expectations of what the game would be like. I was looking at it more from a business viewpoint. The trouble is its more difficult to tell how many people are playing globally D3 globally compared to SC2 and WoW, and how much their still taking in from new game sales and RMAH activity.
|
I was going to say that this is actually what people don't want to hear. Now that Blizzard says Activision can't be blamed, then the only conclusion you can draw from recently released games is that Blizzard is losing its touch.
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
|
On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/
it sold that many because everyone had waited 10 years to get it. But to bad no one could play the game the first week either. It was the same way with the newest Duke Nukem title. Everyone had hyped it up so much that everyone bought it. Then played it and realized it was shit.
|
Face that aside from Starcraft, all of Blizzard's games (WoW, D3) are based upon Skinner Box mechanics. Grinding for hours upon hours for shiny things that make your character is not good gameplay. Not anymore at least. Diablo 2 was the same way but I could tolerate it for some reason. Maybe I was naive back then.
|
On September 19 2012 07:26 NobledBlood wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ it sold that many because everyone had waited 10 years to get it. But to bad no one could play the game the first week either. It was the same way with the newest Duke Nukem title. Everyone had hyped it up so much that everyone bought it. Then played it and realized it was shit.
Nah, the game's OK
IGN even listed it amongst the top 25 games post 2006
Personally, I find D3 not to be an outstanding achievement in gaming, but it's not even close to being a bad game, and I have more fun with it than with D2. I played D2 for years upon years so... comparing DNF to D3 is pure bullshit.
|
On September 19 2012 07:32 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:26 NobledBlood wrote:On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ it sold that many because everyone had waited 10 years to get it. But to bad no one could play the game the first week either. It was the same way with the newest Duke Nukem title. Everyone had hyped it up so much that everyone bought it. Then played it and realized it was shit. Nah, the game's OK IGN even listed it amongst the top 25 games post 2006 Personally, I find D3 not to be an outstanding achievement in gaming, but it's not even close to being a bad game, and I have more fun with it than with D2. I played D2 for years upon years so... comparing DNF to D3 is pure bullshit.
Comparing D3 to Star Wars episodes 1-3 is more apt.
|
So if it's just Blizzard then the question is, why has Blizzard gotten so shitty in the recent years?
|
On September 19 2012 00:49 udgnim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:34 Torte de Lini wrote:Ever since Blizzard merged with Activision, the World of WarCraft and StarCraft studio has often been accused of kow-towing to Activision's demands. However, WoW game director Tom Chilton says that Blizzard has more freedom than everyone thinks.
"I'll come out and say it. Activision gets an unfair reputation among our players for this, as does [Activision-Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick," Chilton said during a Reddit Q&A. "We do demos for the Activision executive team about twice per year (sometimes only once)."
Chilton adds that Activision asks "intelligent questions" about WoW's development. That's as far as the influence goes, though. They've never made any mandates, or mandates-disguised-as-suggestions, regarding the game.
Is Blizzard completely autonomous? No, they're a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard at the end of the day. However, I think that a lot of Activision-Blizzard criticism is of the tinfoil hat territory. Bobby Kotick has gotten blamed for WoW expansions being released too quickly, Diablo 3's real-money auction house, StarCraft 2's DRM and so forth. He can apparently micromanage each of these games while also "milking" Call of Duty and Guitar Hero.
The reason the whole "Activision-Blizzard/Bobby Kotick is the devil" argument persists is that it's easy. It's much cleaner to just dump all responsibilities onto Kotick or "the evil suits." The truth of the matter, though, is that there are many, many people involved in making a game. Activision-Blizzard has several thousand employees across all of its divisions. You really think that only one guy or one shadowy room of executives is responsible for every fuck-up? Really?
That's the thing with evaluating games as a critic or player, though. You don't really get to peek inside at the process that produces the game. You can't tell whether this manager is a jerk-off or that QA tester is lazy or whatever. Our criticism ought to be focused on the final game that they produce. That seems like a better use of our time than pretending we know the exact chain of ev that led a company to produce bad DRM. Hardly anything really noteworthy to be honest. I thought some people already knew that Blizzard does their own thing. 99% of people don't know Blizzard is autonomous from Activision Blizzard not living up to their previous games isn't an Activision thing. It's that the people Blizzard has now aren't the same people when Blizzard released their old games. It's massively apparent with Jay Wilson's comments and overall game design decisions in D3.
Yes it is for half their catalgoue. A good portion of the people who made Starcraft made SC2. The people who made WoW 1.0 are making Titan. It's only D3 and WoW expansions that the staff is significantly different from the previous staff.
The problem isn't just people leaving but the problem is that some of the people who stayed behind have lost their touch.
|
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?!
BECAUSE THE EVIL MADE YOU DO IT.
|
What probe and some of the others said hahaha.
So many people blaming Activision for Blizz's apparently lower quality of games and they come out and say that it wasn't really Activision behind all of it; it was really their own doing and whatnot >.<
|
I think this article is pretty laughable. An $18 billion merger didn't change an organization's culture? Of course it did.
Or it could be total happenstance that two of their three franchises went to total shit after the merger.
|
On September 19 2012 07:26 NobledBlood wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:35 Monkeyballs25 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:08 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 05:01 AnomalySC2 wrote: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?! Name a better rts than Starcraft 1/2. None. Now name a better action rpg out there than d2/3. Please don't say Torchlight. Now name the MMO that has constantly remained the benchmark for all others the past 8 years or so. Seriously Blizzard deserve all the shit they've been getting as of late. D3 is an utter failure, there are no two ways around it. I...what? It sold 6.3 million copies in the first week. Stop with this ridiculous hyperbole, please. http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/harrison/diablo-3-sales-pass-the-6-3-million-mark-gamers-still-unhappy/ it sold that many because everyone had waited 10 years to get it. But to bad no one could play the game the first week either. It was the same way with the newest Duke Nukem title. Everyone had hyped it up so much that everyone bought it. Then played it and realized it was shit.
If I had the chance to play diablo 3 I probably still would have bought it for the nostalgia and the fact I can put 30 hours into it before it became awful repetitive. 30 hours for 60 dollars? I don't mind paying them 2 dollars on the hour for my entertainment, that also doesn't equate the random playings I still have from time to time.
|
Who the hell supports a games quality based off its sales? Are you drones? Basically ALL of my friends list (which is substantial) all have QUIT playing D3 and say they will NOT get an expansion. (me neither btw the game was complete trash might as well of played dungeon siege/heroes)
The patch was too little, too late to save it, also horrible launch comeon man!
|
On September 19 2012 00:39 stk01001 wrote:
Regardless of wether Activision influences Blizzard or not, it's obvious Blizzard is now concentrating much more on profitability and making money as oppose to game quality. Diablo 3 RMAH is probably the best example of this, and just in general it seems most of their decisions are now driven by "what is going to make our game the most appealing to the most people" as oppose to "what's best for the game itself". I mean it's pretty obvious they are getting pressure from Activision to increase the bottom line. Not really blaming them, they are a business and their main goal at the end of the day is to make money, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor behind everything. They need to balance out and be careful not to sacrifice too much game quality just to make profits.
It's been a different company for years man and people will always point to the guys at the top of the ladder.
On September 19 2012 00:49 udgnim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:34 Torte de Lini wrote:Ever since Blizzard merged with Activision, the World of WarCraft and StarCraft studio has often been accused of kow-towing to Activision's demands. However, WoW game director Tom Chilton says that Blizzard has more freedom than everyone thinks.
"I'll come out and say it. Activision gets an unfair reputation among our players for this, as does [Activision-Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick," Chilton said during a Reddit Q&A. "We do demos for the Activision executive team about twice per year (sometimes only once)."
Chilton adds that Activision asks "intelligent questions" about WoW's development. That's as far as the influence goes, though. They've never made any mandates, or mandates-disguised-as-suggestions, regarding the game.
Is Blizzard completely autonomous? No, they're a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard at the end of the day. However, I think that a lot of Activision-Blizzard criticism is of the tinfoil hat territory. Bobby Kotick has gotten blamed for WoW expansions being released too quickly, Diablo 3's real-money auction house, StarCraft 2's DRM and so forth. He can apparently micromanage each of these games while also "milking" Call of Duty and Guitar Hero.
The reason the whole "Activision-Blizzard/Bobby Kotick is the devil" argument persists is that it's easy. It's much cleaner to just dump all responsibilities onto Kotick or "the evil suits." The truth of the matter, though, is that there are many, many people involved in making a game. Activision-Blizzard has several thousand employees across all of its divisions. You really think that only one guy or one shadowy room of executives is responsible for every fuck-up? Really?
That's the thing with evaluating games as a critic or player, though. You don't really get to peek inside at the process that produces the game. You can't tell whether this manager is a jerk-off or that QA tester is lazy or whatever. Our criticism ought to be focused on the final game that they produce. That seems like a better use of our time than pretending we know the exact chain of ev that led a company to produce bad DRM. Hardly anything really noteworthy to be honest. I thought some people already knew that Blizzard does their own thing. 99% of people don't know Blizzard is autonomous from Activision Blizzard not living up to their previous games isn't an Activision thing. It's that the people Blizzard has now aren't the same people when Blizzard released their old games. It's massively apparent with Jay Wilson's comments and overall game design decisions in D3.
Don't get me wrong. There are still a number of senior members on the team as well, but when the studio gets as big as they are. Going to be awfully hard to live up to the hype of delivering top notch games.
This is why hardcore gamers look to the small studios that want to break out.
|
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.
Comments like these just show the majority of people who bitch about Blizzard have unreasonable expectations and demand everything be 100% exactly what they want. Blizzard still does an amazing job they just can't cater to absolutely everyone and meet some of the ridiculous expectations people have for them.
But anyways, here the haters are on a forum for a Blizzard game.
|
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
This made me LOL really hard Thanks man
|
On September 19 2012 08:59 IcedBacon 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. Comments like these just show the majority of people who bitch about Blizzard have unreasonable expectations and demand everything be 100% exactly what they want. Blizzard still does an amazing job they just can't cater to absolutely everyone and meet some of the ridiculous expectations people have for them. But anyways, here the haters are on a forum for a Blizzard game.
Yeah yeah, Blizzard can't please everyone and our expectations are unrealistic and despite all of this D3 was fairly mediocre.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 09:13 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:59 IcedBacon wrote: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. Comments like these just show the majority of people who bitch about Blizzard have unreasonable expectations and demand everything be 100% exactly what they want. Blizzard still does an amazing job they just can't cater to absolutely everyone and meet some of the ridiculous expectations people have for them. But anyways, here the haters are on a forum for a Blizzard game. Yeah yeah, Blizzard can't please everyone and our expectations are unrealistic and despite all of this D3 was fairly mediocre.
I think the biggest complaint is that it was in production for quote "10 years" ... They produced a game that was borderline mediocre in that time, but lke I said I got my 30 hours out of it. I would have rathered they did the SC2 approach and announce it 3 years before release (2007 to 2010 lol)
|
Lol. This was my only hope that the Blizzard I feel in love with was still in there somewhere. I guess not.
|
On September 19 2012 08:59 IcedBacon 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. Comments like these just show the majority of people who bitch about Blizzard have unreasonable expectations and demand everything be 100% exactly what they want. Blizzard still does an amazing job they just can't cater to absolutely everyone and meet some of the ridiculous expectations people have for them. But anyways, here the haters are on a forum for a Blizzard game.
It's too much to expect a finished product upon release? They've had to make big changes just to keep the dwindling player base as it is and their efforts came way too late to save them. I would'nt be surprised if the game is completely dead within a year from now.
|
On September 19 2012 08:31 anatase wrote:Show nested quote +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?! BECAUSE THE EVIL MADE YOU DO IT.
ergo proving the tinfoil conspiracy.
I KNEW IT KOTICK YOU DEVIL
|
On September 19 2012 08:20 Kamais Ookin wrote:
So if it's just Blizzard then the question is, why has Blizzard gotten so shitty in the recent years?
ego.
|
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.
|
Diablo 3 was atrocious. Stopped playing after a couple of weeks and haven't touched it since.
|
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.
Blizzard used to ONLY make quality games. From 1994 to 2001 they made Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Diablo, Starcraft, Brood War, Diablo 2 and LoD. All great games.
|
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.
Valve, for me. Arena net. CD Projekt Red.
|
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.
|
On September 19 2012 09:48 GolemMadness 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. Blizzard used to ONLY make quality games. From 1994 to 2001 they made Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Diablo, Starcraft, Brood War, Diablo 2 and LoD. All great games.
WC3, TFT, and WoW were also quality games as well. That extends the timeline to 2004.
|
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.
Blizzard, up until recently.
Valve.
|
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.
|
On September 19 2012 09:49 Deadlyhazard 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. Valve, for me. Arena net. CD Projekt Red.
I was a hardcore GW1 fan. I was massively disappointed by GW2. The game doesn't even seem close to be finished. Plagued with mechanism issue and design issue.
|
On September 19 2012 09:57 dragonblade369 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:49 Deadlyhazard wrote: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. Valve, for me. Arena net. CD Projekt Red. I was a hardcore GW1 fan. I was massively disappointed by GW2. The game doesn't even seem close to be finished. Plagued with mechanism issue and design issue.
Well, the endgame is certainly a huge mess. Everything up til level 80 is fantastic though. Most of it is a lot better than Guild Wars 1, especially the addition of WvWvW to pvp. It's a shame the dungeons suck (compared to WoW 5 mans) in terms of mechanics. 
|
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.
Which is generally true for most game developers, but few to none dedicate as much time as Blizzard does to their three titles. Especially D3.
|
On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard 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. 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.
|
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups.
|
On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong.
Idk why you felt the need to sign up to post something like this. It's moronic saying that everyone's opinions are stupid and always the same. There have already been dissenting opinions in this thread. Generally there are 2 sides to an argument. So should we only let 2 people post each side of the argument and then close the thread to "stop spamming"? Learn how a forum works.
How ridiculous.
|
On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was.
...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released?
|
On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...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.
|
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.
[B]lol yea so true
Thats the meaningless opinion im talking about. People will follow up to this. And they will believe it
|
[B]Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work.
What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO?
Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions.
|
On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was.
I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Show nested quote +Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions.
It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll?
[B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure.
HL2 is a much smaller product.
|
Blizzard lost the people who made the games that got them to the top, it's not a surprise they haven't been able to live up to previous titles when their sole purpose is the almighty dollar.
|
what do you expect them to say? "yeah the people who give us money are evil!"
|
On September 19 2012 10:38 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions. It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll? Show nested quote +[B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure. HL2 is a much smaller product.
What is your point? They released an unfinished product.
|
On September 19 2012 10:40 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:38 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:29 Henno wrote:Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. What the fuck is a pseudo-MMO? Thats also what i mean. People come up with pointless definitions. It's a description of a game genre. Isn't there another thread for you to troll? [B]On September 19 2012 10:33 SupLilSon wrote: On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. I was just making the point that although HL2 may have dissapointed some people, it was released as a finished product. There wasn't any need for massive patches to alter gameplay or add in content. D3 was in the works for ~10 years and was still released as a mess. Over a month after release there still isn't any form of player versus player gameplay, something which was standard in D2. Objectively, disregarding any personal opinion on the 2 games, HL2 was a success where D3 was a failure. HL2 is a much smaller product. What is your point? They released an unfinished product.
My point is that HL2 and D3 have little in common in what kind of game was being developed -- or even just what the goal was being set for either game. If you're trying to argue that D3 was an unfinished product despite 10 years of anticipation, then why tack on a comparison that doesn't really add any credence to a statement when it's for the most part irrelevant.
|
On September 19 2012 10:19 Epishade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. Idk why you felt the need to sign up to post something like this. It's moronic saying that everyone's opinions are stupid and always the same. There have already been dissenting opinions in this thread. Generally there are 2 sides to an argument. So should we only let 2 people post each side of the argument and then close the thread to "stop spamming"? Learn how a forum works. How ridiculous.
He is very right about a lot of opinions being biased by how low or high skilled you are at a specific game.
|
*Reads Op post*
*Expects general fail in thread*
*Was not disappointed*
Topic of Blizzard sure does bring out the worst in people. Granted, it is due to the passion people have for the games and history.
|
On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work.
He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong.
|
Activision is also not that bad.
They made Battlezone and Dark Reign in the 90s. They published Doom and Quake. They really were innovative. Activision is not Call of Duty.
|
On September 19 2012 00:39 stk01001 wrote:
Regardless of wether Activision influences Blizzard or not, it's obvious Blizzard is now concentrating much more on profitability and making money as oppose to game quality. Diablo 3 RMAH is probably the best example of this, and just in general it seems most of their decisions are now driven by "what is going to make our game the most appealing to the most people" as oppose to "what's best for the game itself". I mean it's pretty obvious they are getting pressure from Activision to increase the bottom line. Not really blaming them, they are a business and their main goal at the end of the day is to make money, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor behind everything. They need to balance out and be careful not to sacrifice too much game quality just to make profits.
The RMAH was obviously an attempt to curtail selling of gold and items via 3rd party sites and keep it in control of blizzard. No need for conspiracies about profit making needed, yes they make money from it and they have a right to. Why should a 3rd party be able to sell in game items and make money from it without paying blizzard? You can't do it in virtually any other medium than gaming. Those 3rd party sites also are the epicenter of hacking, stealing accounts, virus' and malware... taking away business from them benefits gamers the world over in addition to benefiting blizzard.
I swear everyone who pulls this crap out of their ass has no idea how the real world works or is just so dumb that they can't understand that controlling your own product is always preferable to someone else doing so, for both the company and the customers.
|
On September 19 2012 00:32 -Kaiser- wrote:
Lol, poor Blizzard. There goes their only excuse for garbage content.
hahaah yup. first page comment, I wasn't disappointed.
|
On September 19 2012 11:05 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong.
First of all it's me you're referring to, and no, you did not. They released two different games on their new engine in one package. HL2 =/= CSS. Like, you're actually trying to compare them to D3 as if they're entirely relevant at all within the scopes of their genre and the goals of gameplay that were intended. All you're doing is driving this point off the cliff.
It's like asking why Portal 2 isn't updated with as much content as WoW, then when told the obvious reason why, immediately jumping to the conclusion Portal 2 failed where WoW succeeded.
|
On September 19 2012 11:08 Perscienter wrote:
Activision is also not that bad.
They made Battlezone and Dark Reign in the 90s. They published Doom and Quake. They really were innovative. Activision is not Call of Duty.
WASNT They are now. They haven't made shit else but call of dollars.
|
On September 19 2012 09:42 SayGen wrote:
People so mad over D3.
Not every game is going to be an outstanding success or a legacy title.
Name one AAA game company that hasn't disapointed its fans......
point set match.
I dunno Valve seems to be doing pretty good still.
I think the biggest thing is that when Valve has something that's broken...say like early Steam...THEY FIX IT.
Bnet 0.2 still has pages and pages of issues and is still inferior to Bnet 1.0 is most meaninful ways. That's the issue at hand.
|
On September 19 2012 11:38 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:42 SayGen wrote:
People so mad over D3.
Not every game is going to be an outstanding success or a legacy title.
Name one AAA game company that hasn't disapointed its fans......
point set match. I dunno Valve seems to be doing pretty good still. I think the biggest thing is that when Valve has something that's broken...say like early Steam...THEY FIX IT. Bnet 0.2 still has pages and pages of issues and is still inferior to Bnet 1.0 is most meaninful ways. That's the issue at hand.
Early Steam was a mess. Years went by before my friends list worked consistently. The thing is no one really cared that much because the games were amazing.
|
On September 19 2012 10:52 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:19 Epishade wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. Idk why you felt the need to sign up to post something like this. It's moronic saying that everyone's opinions are stupid and always the same. There have already been dissenting opinions in this thread. Generally there are 2 sides to an argument. So should we only let 2 people post each side of the argument and then close the thread to "stop spamming"? Learn how a forum works. How ridiculous. He is very right about a lot of opinions being biased by how low or high skilled you are at a specific game.
I wouldn't try to make the argument that many opinions aren't biased, because generally that's what opinions are. Not to mention there is no minimum skill requirement for voicing opinions. That being said, having a high skill level at a game does not guarantee an unbiased opinion (nor should it). But just because an opinion is biased, which most opinions probably are, doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that you shouldn't voice it.
|
lolol there goes blizzards only excuse. used to be activisions fault. now its all on you, blizzard!
|
On September 19 2012 11:12 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:05 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:27 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:22 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 10:20 rd wrote:On September 19 2012 10:16 SupLilSon wrote:On September 19 2012 10:11 Henno wrote:On September 19 2012 09:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On September 19 2012 09:53 Henno wrote:
Would you guys stop spamming your opinions in this thread? They are: Meaningless, bias, pointless, low-high-skillbased, stupid, based on assumption. And always the same. Dont you guys notice that there is always a same one sentence "opinion" of yours? You cant discuss that. There is nothing to discuss. Nobody can check if your opinion is right or wrong. I don't think you understand what a forum is for. It is for debating opinions. Of course people are going to have similar opinions, some people think similarly about certain issues. There are differing opinions, however, if you read the entire thread. There are fans of Blizzard defending them, going against them, and everything in-between. You cant debate without digging deeper into someones "opinion". You have to know the circumstances of this person. Or if he contradict his own opinion somehow. Its always the same shit: wow bad addons bad activision-blizzard everything else good. Oh btw. Half-Life 2 was a disappointment. physics/graphic were fun. But the rest to short. Does it matter? No, not at all. Half Life 2 may have personally been a dissapointment to you but it released as a playable and whole game. D3 released without PvP (still no PvP) and tons of inherent problems. On September 19 2012 10:16 joon wrote:
I bet Activision told them to say that after all the shit they get for blizzard's fuck ups. lol yea so true In defense of D3 despite it's negative qualities, HL2 didn't have an online component at all to develop. Sort of unfair to make such a comparison. D3 was intended to give lifetimes more play value than HL2 ever was. ...Didn't HL2 come with HL2 deathmatch? And Counter-Strike Source when it was originally released? Source, yes. But two separate games -- put against a pseudo-mmo. I'm not sure if you actually intend to make this comparison work. He said it didn't have an online component at all and thus no replayability. I just proved him wrong. First of all it's me you're referring to, and no, you did not. They released two different games on their new engine in one package. HL2 =/= CSS. Like, you're actually trying to compare them to D3 as if they're entirely relevant at all within the scopes of their genre and the goals of gameplay that were intended. All you're doing is driving this point off the cliff. It's like asking why Portal 2 isn't updated with as much content as WoW, then when told the obvious reason why, immediately jumping to the conclusion Portal 2 failed where WoW succeeded.
Well wasn't HL2 death match part of the game? That's online. And Half-life.
I'm not comparing D3 to Valve games, heck, I was just saying that HL2 having no online component is wrong. I don't care to compare Valve to Blizzard. I think Valve makes better games these days, that's all. They're more consistent with quality products than Blizzard IMO.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Italy12246 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![[image loading]](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17wj7be08umdxjpg/original.jpg)
