On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
In fairness, League of Legends has a man on an airplane that sees less altitude than Sajuani. So its not out of the picture so long as they can match the scale propery (obviously not 1:1 but if someone pinks a tank it better take up more room)
In more fairness, DotA has Gyrocopter, which was the direct inspiration for Corki. I think a Siege Tank hero has a lot of potential. Didn't one of the older versions of DotA have a Dwarven Mortar unit as a hero?
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
Imagine playing as Fenix. Those silly dragoons
Not to mention we can play as Kerrigan and kill Fenix over and over and over again. Hehehe.
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
In fairness, League of Legends has a man on an airplane that sees less altitude than Sajuani. So its not out of the picture so long as they can match the scale propery (obviously not 1:1 but if someone pinks a tank it better take up more room)
In more fairness, DotA has Gyrocopter, which was the direct inspiration for Corki. I think a Siege Tank hero has a lot of potential. Didn't one of the older versions of DotA have a Dwarven Mortar unit as a hero?
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
Imagine playing as Fenix. Those silly dragoons
Not to mention we can play as Kerrigan and kill Fenix over and over and over again. Hehehe.
Oh wow! I never made the gyrocoptor connection despite loving that bastard in War3! lol
Fenix would be cooler if his ultimate was that the next time he is killed by an enemy hero he respawns as a Dragoon with buffed stats.
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
In fairness, League of Legends has a man on an airplane that sees less altitude than Sajuani. So its not out of the picture so long as they can match the scale propery (obviously not 1:1 but if someone pinks a tank it better take up more room)
In more fairness, DotA has Gyrocopter, which was the direct inspiration for Corki. I think a Siege Tank hero has a lot of potential. Didn't one of the older versions of DotA have a Dwarven Mortar unit as a hero?
On October 23 2013 01:49 Zenbrez wrote:
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
Imagine playing as Fenix. Those silly dragoons
Not to mention we can play as Kerrigan and kill Fenix over and over and over again. Hehehe.
Oh wow! I never made the gyrocoptor connection despite loving that bastard in War3! lol
Fenix would be cooler if his ultimate was that the next time he is killed by an enemy hero he respawns as a Dragoon with buffed stats.
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
In fairness, League of Legends has a man on an airplane that sees less altitude than Sajuani. So its not out of the picture so long as they can match the scale propery (obviously not 1:1 but if someone pinks a tank it better take up more room)
In more fairness, DotA has Gyrocopter, which was the direct inspiration for Corki. I think a Siege Tank hero has a lot of potential. Didn't one of the older versions of DotA have a Dwarven Mortar unit as a hero?
On October 23 2013 01:49 Zenbrez wrote:
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
Imagine playing as Fenix. Those silly dragoons
Not to mention we can play as Kerrigan and kill Fenix over and over and over again. Hehehe.
Oh wow! I never made the gyrocoptor connection despite loving that bastard in War3! lol
Fenix would be cooler if his ultimate was that the next time he is killed by an enemy hero he respawns as a Dragoon with buffed stats.
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
It's not like they have to keep everything about the unit the same when it gets turned into a hero. Give it regular tank mode to move around and shoot at a normal range. Give an ultimate that goes into siege mode for X seconds and gives it 1 screen range and aoe damage. There's no reason RTS units can't be recycled into hero type units.
Besides that, getting blown up from a few screens away (or the entire map) is a pretty normal thing in MOBA games. Like Ashe or Ezreal from LoL, or Nature's Prophet or Ancient Apparition from DotA.
On October 23 2013 01:22 awesomoecalypse wrote: So looking at screenshots, it appears that there is an odd mix of characters in this game. Some of them are the "all-star" iconic NPCs you'd expect, like Zeratul and Kerrigan and Arthas and Thrall. But some of the icons just look like notable units, like the Siege Tank. Using units designed for RTS purposes, like Siege Tanks, in a MOBA could be cool, or could be a complete mess. Like one dude is walking along playing a traditional MOBA style hero like a Diablo Barbarian or something...and then someone else sieges up a few screen away and blows him into oblivion?
It's not like they have to keep everything about the unit the same when it gets turned into a hero. Give it regular tank mode to move around and shoot at a normal range. Give an ultimate that goes into siege mode for X seconds and gives it 1 screen range and aoe damage. There's no reason RTS units can't be recycled into hero type units.
Aeon of Strife was purely RTS units with little to no abilities outside of what they came with. Medics healed, Zealots zealed.
While I might not agree with someone's wording and how they express their feelings. You sure do ask a lot of stupid questions Magpie. No one would argue how many copies Blizzard sold when it comes to D3. Everyone should know by now the strength of Blizzard's IP, but that isn't the only measure of success. There are many titles out there that see more playing time than D3 and this goes back to spring of last year. Did you see how many people were actually online back then? Anyway, there's a ton of shit about it all over forums. People complaining about how few people are playing in public games, etc. Even games I play that people would call dead (I use that word very loosely) have more livelihood than that and I'm not even going to bother answering how many people watch people play D2, lol. We're living in different eras bud.
On October 22 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: @arrinao
A.) the MMO market was HUGE pre-wow getting public attention as well as having a massive following. In fact, f2p MMOs also had a huge following and continue to have a huge following. They were not niche in any way shape or form and is the reason that they started the trend of real life money being traded for digital items such as houses and gear.
When WoW came out, it was at the same time as Everquest 2. So it not only came out against competition, but it was against competition with a massive history to it in Everquest. Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release. WoW killed the MMO market and has stifled its growth since any big release MMO has to beat WoW. Each year a new WoW killer tries to come out and each time it fails.
B.) MTGO is huge and is the biggest expander of magic the gathering in recent years. More people play magic the gathering online than they do in stores. You can buy MTGO right now, spend $200-$2000 on a deck and literally play in 2-3 tournaments a day for the rest of the year. Hearthstone is literally jumping into a market that is currently dominated by MTGO. Also, in case you don't know, most people can either afford to play MTGO or Real life MTG--because doing both requires spending money on both which quickly accrues to $600-$4000 a year not counting plane tickets to go to events.
So no, hearthstone is not jumping into an empty market.
C.) How is Diablo 3 a failure?
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it? Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it? Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
What game in its genre is selling more than it and is as we'll know as it?
Diablo 3 might not have reinvented sliced bread but it was not a failure.
------------------------ You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
So please stop this hate train.
I'll start with your last words: I believe we are both grown men and as such I don't really feel the need to polarize love B/hate B. I can just as easily ask you to stop the fanboyism, but I won't because I actually respect your opinions. Please make it mutual.
A.) The MMO market pre-WoW was *huge* really? I don't know what you consider "huge" but let me tell you it simply wasn't huge, because it couldn't. As long as the dial-up modem connection was the most prominent form of internet connection, this branch of market was effectively pushed out from the mainstream. I'm not sure how can I effectively express myself because you seem to still not catch my point but let me put it this way. We can both agree that 99% games especially the AAA ones are most popular at the time of their release and for a short period after. Everquest was popular no doubt, but it's moment in the sun came when the genre was still under high-speed restriction and thus, niche. WoW's momentum matched with the internet revolution, when people actually started to look for the opportunities to really make usage of the power of the broadband. It deserved it, no doubt, at the time it was better than Everquest and Ultima Online, but my point still stands. If the internet revolution didn't happen, WoW would be nowhere near as popular as it was.
Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release.
I do not know what's your point in making stuff up but i this is pretty much a BS. Out of those people who played EQ some left for WoW, but definitely not all of them. But that didn't matter at the time as WoW reached out of the boundaries and grabbed people who had no idea of MMO's. Btw. are you really trying to tell me that WoW came out and EQ servers were empty all of a sudden? Please. As for the WoW killer failings, I already told you the reasons. It was at the right place at the right time letting it to define the genre and solidify it's position as a go to MMO.
B.) I can see you are from America so I'll hold back as I have no idea about the situation on your market. But I can assure you that here, in EU, people with no interest in the card games had actually no idea about their existence, even though Magic The Gathering is quite prominent. But for PC TCG's, it's basically the google thing I explained in my previous post. Hearthstone was first to actually remind us there are PC TCG's after all and as such, it had virtually no competition at all.
C.) I never said Diablo 3 is failure. What's wrong with you? Anyway
None. "Don't let the door hit you on your way out." Does it prove it's quality? It recieved massive criticism and a big exodus of players in first months. Does that mean anything to you or not?
Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it?
I don't know if this is a trolling atempt or being serious but I rather go with the first choice so I don't have to roll my eyes. Comparing Diablo 3 to Diablo 2, a 13 year old game, to which D3 actually IS a direct successor is... hopefully just a trolling atempt. I thought were having a serious conversation. Please don't do that again.
Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
Yes it did sell millions of copies, more precisely 12. And no it isn't, at least initially. Initially it might sell millions, but definitely not 10 as the original did. For the initial sales I predict half of that number at most. How it will be then is written in the stars, but I still doubt it would reach 12 again...
You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
Command and Conquer was the go to single-player RTS, it's strengths lied in graphics and FMV sequences, as Westwood never really adapt into multiplayer trend. Tell me a genre other than RTS that was "dominated" in a way that a game from a different company made it mainstream and defined it around itself and then Blizzard came and dethroned it. And don't come up with EQ pls, we already discussed that.
You might have discussed it, but you are flat out wrong regarding EQ. Maybe you don't remember (or maybe your not old enough who knows) but WoW was never considered the "sure bet" it seems today. Around the time WoW launched there were 3 big MMOs in development or just released. EQ2 (with a massive budged and much better engine) was considered the favorite. DAoC was considered the "to go" system for PvP. I remember quite clearly quite a few bloggers and almost all reviewers promising a close "match" between EQ2 and WoW. And yes, WoW might have profited from the faster internet (though I might point out that in Europe broadband became standard around the time EQ 1 launched nearly 4 years before) but there were a number of brands established which seemed poised to take the next generation.
Instead WoW stomped them flat. The hype created by the different stages of beta and the sheer amount of polish invested into the game made EQ2 feel staid and boring. Entire guilds of hardcore raiders moved to WoW simply because they hoped Blizzard would invest similar polish into endgame raids (at the time not even Molten Core was ready to be acessed). The "MMO" Genre (if you want to call it that) progressed somewhat like this: UO created it (in the dial up age) EQ expanded it (and created the "raid bosses" as we know them today) WoW exploded it.
I'd agree with you on the topic of RTS, Warcraft and Command and Conquer were pretty similar in regards to brand strength. Frankly the RTS market used to be big enough to sustain 3 big brands at the same time (most old timers would consider Age of Empires as the 3rd brand, with some other RTS franchises which were quite successfull at the side).
RPGs? (Or rather Diablo style RPG?) Blizzard basically invented that. They followed their classic formula, take anything that is fun from a classic style RPG, make it as accessible as possible, polish until done. The point why people are as frustrated with Blizzards latest releases is that they seem to have forgotten how to polish their games to the standard we've come to expect.
Heck nowadays it seems like only console titles get polished pre-release. Most of the major PC launches I've been looking forward to (usually by studios I've like for years and years) have been bug infested nightmares or been reliant on unstable servers.
On October 23 2013 05:36 StarStruck wrote: While I might not agree with someone's wording and how they express their feelings. You sure do ask a lot of stupid questions Magpie. No one would argue how many copies Blizzard sold when it comes to D3. Everyone should know by now the strength of Blizzard's IP, but that isn't the only measure of success. There are many titles out there that see more playing time than D3 and this goes back to spring of last year. Did you see how many people were actually online back then? Anyway, there's a ton of shit about it all over forums. People complaining about how few people are playing in public games, etc. Even games I play that people would call dead (I use that word very loosely) have more livelihood than that and I'm not even going to bother answering how many people watch people play D2, lol. We're living in different eras bud.
The wait time to get a 4 person group in Diablo 3 is about as long as the wait time for a 2v2 in Starcraft2 and a lot shorter than getting a 1v1 ladder game in BW's battlenet in 1999/2000.
There's a reason he compares D3 and SC2 to LoL and not to their competitors in their respective genres.
Because the only games in the same genre as Diablo 3's multiplayer action RPG are the likes of Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Because there isn't any other AAA RTS release outside of SC2.
He doesn't compare them to their piers because then he'd have to call them a runaway hit. He is mistaking his anecdotal experience with blizzard as objective truth. He's treating his expectations of blizzard as his expectations of all products; and in doing so he is constructing a dishonest argument.
Diablo3 gets more views on twitch than Streetfighter IV and Magic the gathering. But neither of those two games are anywhere even near dying. Diablo3 still has a massive player base, less than during release but not non-existent. When the expansion comes out millions are going to buy it and it wil make a lot of money. The player base will spike, and then taper. Why? Because blizzard makes good games. Blizzard failing to make the best game ever made does not mean that their game is a failure. Not bein the best does not mean failure and it's a caustic mindset to have in anything and everything.
On October 22 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: @arrinao
A.) the MMO market was HUGE pre-wow getting public attention as well as having a massive following. In fact, f2p MMOs also had a huge following and continue to have a huge following. They were not niche in any way shape or form and is the reason that they started the trend of real life money being traded for digital items such as houses and gear.
When WoW came out, it was at the same time as Everquest 2. So it not only came out against competition, but it was against competition with a massive history to it in Everquest. Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release. WoW killed the MMO market and has stifled its growth since any big release MMO has to beat WoW. Each year a new WoW killer tries to come out and each time it fails.
B.) MTGO is huge and is the biggest expander of magic the gathering in recent years. More people play magic the gathering online than they do in stores. You can buy MTGO right now, spend $200-$2000 on a deck and literally play in 2-3 tournaments a day for the rest of the year. Hearthstone is literally jumping into a market that is currently dominated by MTGO. Also, in case you don't know, most people can either afford to play MTGO or Real life MTG--because doing both requires spending money on both which quickly accrues to $600-$4000 a year not counting plane tickets to go to events.
So no, hearthstone is not jumping into an empty market.
C.) How is Diablo 3 a failure?
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it? Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it? Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
What game in its genre is selling more than it and is as we'll know as it?
Diablo 3 might not have reinvented sliced bread but it was not a failure.
------------------------ You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
So please stop this hate train.
I'll start with your last words: I believe we are both grown men and as such I don't really feel the need to polarize love B/hate B. I can just as easily ask you to stop the fanboyism, but I won't because I actually respect your opinions. Please make it mutual.
A.) The MMO market pre-WoW was *huge* really? I don't know what you consider "huge" but let me tell you it simply wasn't huge, because it couldn't. As long as the dial-up modem connection was the most prominent form of internet connection, this branch of market was effectively pushed out from the mainstream. I'm not sure how can I effectively express myself because you seem to still not catch my point but let me put it this way. We can both agree that 99% games especially the AAA ones are most popular at the time of their release and for a short period after. Everquest was popular no doubt, but it's moment in the sun came when the genre was still under high-speed restriction and thus, niche. WoW's momentum matched with the internet revolution, when people actually started to look for the opportunities to really make usage of the power of the broadband. It deserved it, no doubt, at the time it was better than Everquest and Ultima Online, but my point still stands. If the internet revolution didn't happen, WoW would be nowhere near as popular as it was.
Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release.
I do not know what's your point in making stuff up but i this is pretty much a BS. Out of those people who played EQ some left for WoW, but definitely not all of them. But that didn't matter at the time as WoW reached out of the boundaries and grabbed people who had no idea of MMO's. Btw. are you really trying to tell me that WoW came out and EQ servers were empty all of a sudden? Please. As for the WoW killer failings, I already told you the reasons. It was at the right place at the right time letting it to define the genre and solidify it's position as a go to MMO.
B.) I can see you are from America so I'll hold back as I have no idea about the situation on your market. But I can assure you that here, in EU, people with no interest in the card games had actually no idea about their existence, even though Magic The Gathering is quite prominent. But for PC TCG's, it's basically the google thing I explained in my previous post. Hearthstone was first to actually remind us there are PC TCG's after all and as such, it had virtually no competition at all.
C.) I never said Diablo 3 is failure. What's wrong with you? Anyway
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it?
None. "Don't let the door hit you on your way out." Does it prove it's quality? It recieved massive criticism and a big exodus of players in first months. Does that mean anything to you or not?
Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it?
I don't know if this is a trolling atempt or being serious but I rather go with the first choice so I don't have to roll my eyes. Comparing Diablo 3 to Diablo 2, a 13 year old game, to which D3 actually IS a direct successor is... hopefully just a trolling atempt. I thought were having a serious conversation. Please don't do that again.
Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
Yes it did sell millions of copies, more precisely 12. And no it isn't, at least initially. Initially it might sell millions, but definitely not 10 as the original did. For the initial sales I predict half of that number at most. How it will be then is written in the stars, but I still doubt it would reach 12 again...
You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
Command and Conquer was the go to single-player RTS, it's strengths lied in graphics and FMV sequences, as Westwood never really adapt into multiplayer trend. Tell me a genre other than RTS that was "dominated" in a way that a game from a different company made it mainstream and defined it around itself and then Blizzard came and dethroned it. And don't come up with EQ pls, we already discussed that.
Since you obviously never played WoW or at least kept up with it; World of Warcraft and its development both in the beta and release was pushed most heavily by the top Everquest clans transferring to World of Warcraft and talking to developers about changes that needed to occur for end game content to be considered good.
You know why? Because Everquest raids were done, for the most part, by phone lists, wherein people took shifts searching boss spawns, making tonnes of phone calls for impromptu raids. Ultima Online had massive communities of people as well. And you know what happened when Everquest 2 and Ultima Online 2 were released? Nothing, because by then they had switched to playing World of Warcraft, were part of the development of World of Warcraft, and were the main pushers of content for world of warcraft.
B.) Since you don't seem to know anything about Magic the Gathering, EU and US markets for the game was massive and encompassing and, for the longest time, EU was the continent pushing strategy development and innovation for magic the gathering. Recently japan has had a surge of talent and the Pro Tours in japan were big hits. But Sweden, Germany, and France has had top players since the birth of Magic so your not caring about card games is actually just your own ignorance since EU has been a big magic hub for the past 10 years.
There are more online magic tournaments running right now than almost any other tournaments, I can log in at any time and have a swathe of choices between draft, standard, modern, etc...
Magic is also currently rising in popularity as the previous 2 sets have actually increased the number of MTGO accounts and increased the regular attendance of both local and large tournaments in both EU and the US. So no, you're wrong in your attempt to pretend that there isn't a juggernaut that is already holding the TCG market both online and offline not counting the hundreds of mobile apps also in the market but will never get big because if you're serious about TCG or CCG games, Magic the Gathering is the only one where you can make a living flying the world playing card games.
Rogue RPGs were very prevalent in the early 90's, but stopped after Diable 2 broke the market for it. Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, etc... were the biggest selling and top of the line RTS games, until Broodwar came out.
You're ignorance of the scenes and what developed in them is just your ignorance of them.
A.) While you are right about myself not following the EQ scene, and having no idea about people from EQ being in development for WoW, I don't really need it to refute your statement. All that I need to know is the fact that in this era (2003-2006) I was living in with my brother-in-law, who by that time played Everquest. WoW came, went by, and rose to stardom, and yet he was still playing Everquest in 2006 and there was still a lot of people around. So most definitely not everyone left for WoW.
B.) I don't really get which MTG you're talking about. If you are talking about the classic TCG, then you pretty much tell me nothing new. If you are talking about the videogame, than I can only disagree. Magic the Gathering in EU afaik is pretty much a card game for which cards, not PC's are required. Where did you take that I do not care about TCG's? I stated loud and clear that I play MTG. But I have still no idea that there is an MTG PC game. Because the actual real prominence and recognition came out from the real cardgame, not it's PC incarnation.
C.) RPG and ARPG are far apart. In this matter Diablo didn't dethrone anything it merely invented a new genre.
do you just make this stuff up? C&C had a huge multiplayer following.
here is a top C&C pro gamer here...
Thanks for the vid. What was the hassle for though? Basically any game can have a multiplayer following as long as it has multiplayer. The problem is not every game is designed with it in mindset. Want an example? Go play C&C and then go play Warcraft 2. Compare the experiences. C&C's just wasn't designed for multiplayer. None of it's strongpoints really mattered in multiplayer, which was an unbalanced mess. So no, my point still stands: C&C (with maybe a little exception in the form of Red Alert), were no real competitors for multiplayer RTS.
You might have discussed it, but you are flat out wrong regarding EQ. Maybe you don't remember (or maybe your not old enough who knows) but WoW was never considered the "sure bet" it seems today. Around the time WoW launched there were 3 big MMOs in development or just released. EQ2 (with a massive budged and much better engine) was considered the favorite. DAoC was considered the "to go" system for PvP. I remember quite clearly quite a few bloggers and almost all reviewers promising a close "match" between EQ2 and WoW. And yes, WoW might have profited from the faster internet (though I might point out that in Europe broadband became standard around the time EQ 1 launched nearly 4 years before) but there were a number of brands established which seemed poised to take the next generation.
Instead WoW stomped them flat. The hype created by the different stages of beta and the sheer amount of polish invested into the game made EQ2 feel staid and boring. Entire guilds of hardcore raiders moved to WoW simply because they hoped Blizzard would invest similar polish into endgame raids (at the time not even Molten Core was ready to be acessed). The "MMO" Genre (if you want to call it that) progressed somewhat like this: UO created it (in the dial up age) EQ expanded it (and created the "raid bosses" as we know them today) WoW exploded it.
No I did not. I simply didn't find EQ2 worth mentioning. And I don't really understand where did the "sure bet" stuff come from. Does "lucky timing" sound as a sure bet? Anyway what you said about EQ2 being a favorite at the time is true. What you, however, forgot to add, is that it was released in very premature state as a confusing mishmash of bad design decision, that was instantly met with heavy criticism, and players moved away from it as they had a direct substitute
Once again no one's calling it a failure, failure. Massive player base? Here we go again. Look at how many people are actually online and in-game. It's no different from a lot of other games. Sure it will peak again when the expansion is released but those numbers will dwindle like they did before. Blizzard will still get paid because as I said a few times now. We know the strength of Blizzard's IP and that's why they could sell a steaming pile of dog trash (note: I don't think any of their titles are a steaming pile of dog trash but I'm using this example anyway because people would still buy it). Just look at other brands like EA and you get the idea. Not like the movie business is any better because it isn't. Could anyone think of a worse industry than Entertainment when it comes to Consumerism?
People really need to stop using the word failure in these conversations.
On October 22 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: @arrinao
A.) the MMO market was HUGE pre-wow getting public attention as well as having a massive following. In fact, f2p MMOs also had a huge following and continue to have a huge following. They were not niche in any way shape or form and is the reason that they started the trend of real life money being traded for digital items such as houses and gear.
When WoW came out, it was at the same time as Everquest 2. So it not only came out against competition, but it was against competition with a massive history to it in Everquest. Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release. WoW killed the MMO market and has stifled its growth since any big release MMO has to beat WoW. Each year a new WoW killer tries to come out and each time it fails.
B.) MTGO is huge and is the biggest expander of magic the gathering in recent years. More people play magic the gathering online than they do in stores. You can buy MTGO right now, spend $200-$2000 on a deck and literally play in 2-3 tournaments a day for the rest of the year. Hearthstone is literally jumping into a market that is currently dominated by MTGO. Also, in case you don't know, most people can either afford to play MTGO or Real life MTG--because doing both requires spending money on both which quickly accrues to $600-$4000 a year not counting plane tickets to go to events.
So no, hearthstone is not jumping into an empty market.
C.) How is Diablo 3 a failure?
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it? Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it? Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
What game in its genre is selling more than it and is as we'll know as it?
Diablo 3 might not have reinvented sliced bread but it was not a failure.
------------------------ You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
So please stop this hate train.
I'll start with your last words: I believe we are both grown men and as such I don't really feel the need to polarize love B/hate B. I can just as easily ask you to stop the fanboyism, but I won't because I actually respect your opinions. Please make it mutual.
A.) The MMO market pre-WoW was *huge* really? I don't know what you consider "huge" but let me tell you it simply wasn't huge, because it couldn't. As long as the dial-up modem connection was the most prominent form of internet connection, this branch of market was effectively pushed out from the mainstream. I'm not sure how can I effectively express myself because you seem to still not catch my point but let me put it this way. We can both agree that 99% games especially the AAA ones are most popular at the time of their release and for a short period after. Everquest was popular no doubt, but it's moment in the sun came when the genre was still under high-speed restriction and thus, niche. WoW's momentum matched with the internet revolution, when people actually started to look for the opportunities to really make usage of the power of the broadband. It deserved it, no doubt, at the time it was better than Everquest and Ultima Online, but my point still stands. If the internet revolution didn't happen, WoW would be nowhere near as popular as it was.
Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release.
I do not know what's your point in making stuff up but i this is pretty much a BS. Out of those people who played EQ some left for WoW, but definitely not all of them. But that didn't matter at the time as WoW reached out of the boundaries and grabbed people who had no idea of MMO's. Btw. are you really trying to tell me that WoW came out and EQ servers were empty all of a sudden? Please. As for the WoW killer failings, I already told you the reasons. It was at the right place at the right time letting it to define the genre and solidify it's position as a go to MMO.
B.) I can see you are from America so I'll hold back as I have no idea about the situation on your market. But I can assure you that here, in EU, people with no interest in the card games had actually no idea about their existence, even though Magic The Gathering is quite prominent. But for PC TCG's, it's basically the google thing I explained in my previous post. Hearthstone was first to actually remind us there are PC TCG's after all and as such, it had virtually no competition at all.
C.) I never said Diablo 3 is failure. What's wrong with you? Anyway
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it?
None. "Don't let the door hit you on your way out." Does it prove it's quality? It recieved massive criticism and a big exodus of players in first months. Does that mean anything to you or not?
Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it?
I don't know if this is a trolling atempt or being serious but I rather go with the first choice so I don't have to roll my eyes. Comparing Diablo 3 to Diablo 2, a 13 year old game, to which D3 actually IS a direct successor is... hopefully just a trolling atempt. I thought were having a serious conversation. Please don't do that again.
Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
Yes it did sell millions of copies, more precisely 12. And no it isn't, at least initially. Initially it might sell millions, but definitely not 10 as the original did. For the initial sales I predict half of that number at most. How it will be then is written in the stars, but I still doubt it would reach 12 again...
You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
Command and Conquer was the go to single-player RTS, it's strengths lied in graphics and FMV sequences, as Westwood never really adapt into multiplayer trend. Tell me a genre other than RTS that was "dominated" in a way that a game from a different company made it mainstream and defined it around itself and then Blizzard came and dethroned it. And don't come up with EQ pls, we already discussed that.
Since you obviously never played WoW or at least kept up with it; World of Warcraft and its development both in the beta and release was pushed most heavily by the top Everquest clans transferring to World of Warcraft and talking to developers about changes that needed to occur for end game content to be considered good.
You know why? Because Everquest raids were done, for the most part, by phone lists, wherein people took shifts searching boss spawns, making tonnes of phone calls for impromptu raids. Ultima Online had massive communities of people as well. And you know what happened when Everquest 2 and Ultima Online 2 were released? Nothing, because by then they had switched to playing World of Warcraft, were part of the development of World of Warcraft, and were the main pushers of content for world of warcraft.
B.) Since you don't seem to know anything about Magic the Gathering, EU and US markets for the game was massive and encompassing and, for the longest time, EU was the continent pushing strategy development and innovation for magic the gathering. Recently japan has had a surge of talent and the Pro Tours in japan were big hits. But Sweden, Germany, and France has had top players since the birth of Magic so your not caring about card games is actually just your own ignorance since EU has been a big magic hub for the past 10 years.
There are more online magic tournaments running right now than almost any other tournaments, I can log in at any time and have a swathe of choices between draft, standard, modern, etc...
Magic is also currently rising in popularity as the previous 2 sets have actually increased the number of MTGO accounts and increased the regular attendance of both local and large tournaments in both EU and the US. So no, you're wrong in your attempt to pretend that there isn't a juggernaut that is already holding the TCG market both online and offline not counting the hundreds of mobile apps also in the market but will never get big because if you're serious about TCG or CCG games, Magic the Gathering is the only one where you can make a living flying the world playing card games.
Rogue RPGs were very prevalent in the early 90's, but stopped after Diable 2 broke the market for it. Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, etc... were the biggest selling and top of the line RTS games, until Broodwar came out.
You're ignorance of the scenes and what developed in them is just your ignorance of them.
A.) While you are right about myself not following the EQ scene, and having no idea about people from EQ being in development for WoW, I don't really need it to refute your statement. All that I need to know is the fact that in this era (2003-2006) I was living in with my brother-in-law, who by that time played Everquest. WoW came, went by, and rose to stardom, and yet he was still playing Everquest in 2006 and there was still a lot of people around. So most definitely not everyone left for WoW.
B.) I don't really get which MTG you're talking about. If you are talking about the classic TCG, then you pretty much tell me nothing new. If you are talking about the videogame, than I can only disagree. Magic the Gathering in EU afaik is pretty much a card game for which cards, not PC's are required. Where did you take that I do not care about TCG's? I stated loud and clear that I play MTG. But I have still no idea that there is an MTG PC game. Because the actual real prominence and recognition came out from the real cardgame, not it's PC incarnation.
C.) RPG and ARPG are far apart. In this matter Diablo didn't dethrone anything it merely invented a new genre.
do you just make this stuff up? C&C had a huge multiplayer following.
here is a top C&C pro gamer here...
Thanks for the vid. What was the hassle for though? Basically any game can have a multiplayer following as long as it has multiplayer. The problem is not every game is designed with it in mindset. Want an example? Go play C&C and then go play Warcraft 2. Compare the experiences. C&C's just wasn't designed for multiplayer. None of it's strongpoints really mattered in multiplayer, which was an unbalanced mess. So no, my point still stands: C&C (with maybe a little exception in the form of Red Alert), were no real competitors for multiplayer RTS.
no competition after the dust settled. C&C3 went right after the multiplayer with there "RTS as Sport" stuff..
according to Greg Black and Jeremy Feasel substantial resources were devoted to building a multiplayer base with every version of C&C.
it was so long ago in the past i do not think these guys are bullshitting... EALA really tried... and they just got steam rolled by better mulitplayer products like SC and CoH.
C&C competed with SC and lost.
further to this point about EA wanting to compete and win the multiplayer RTS space. the new C&C has given up on campaign altogether and is solely focused on multiplayer and "skirmish".
Aaron "Apoc" Kaufman's job was nothing but hyping C&C multiplayer. "BattleCast Primetime" ..
On October 22 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: @arrinao
A.) the MMO market was HUGE pre-wow getting public attention as well as having a massive following. In fact, f2p MMOs also had a huge following and continue to have a huge following. They were not niche in any way shape or form and is the reason that they started the trend of real life money being traded for digital items such as houses and gear.
When WoW came out, it was at the same time as Everquest 2. So it not only came out against competition, but it was against competition with a massive history to it in Everquest. Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release. WoW killed the MMO market and has stifled its growth since any big release MMO has to beat WoW. Each year a new WoW killer tries to come out and each time it fails.
B.) MTGO is huge and is the biggest expander of magic the gathering in recent years. More people play magic the gathering online than they do in stores. You can buy MTGO right now, spend $200-$2000 on a deck and literally play in 2-3 tournaments a day for the rest of the year. Hearthstone is literally jumping into a market that is currently dominated by MTGO. Also, in case you don't know, most people can either afford to play MTGO or Real life MTG--because doing both requires spending money on both which quickly accrues to $600-$4000 a year not counting plane tickets to go to events.
So no, hearthstone is not jumping into an empty market.
C.) How is Diablo 3 a failure?
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it? Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it? Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
What game in its genre is selling more than it and is as we'll know as it?
Diablo 3 might not have reinvented sliced bread but it was not a failure.
------------------------ You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
So please stop this hate train.
I'll start with your last words: I believe we are both grown men and as such I don't really feel the need to polarize love B/hate B. I can just as easily ask you to stop the fanboyism, but I won't because I actually respect your opinions. Please make it mutual.
A.) The MMO market pre-WoW was *huge* really? I don't know what you consider "huge" but let me tell you it simply wasn't huge, because it couldn't. As long as the dial-up modem connection was the most prominent form of internet connection, this branch of market was effectively pushed out from the mainstream. I'm not sure how can I effectively express myself because you seem to still not catch my point but let me put it this way. We can both agree that 99% games especially the AAA ones are most popular at the time of their release and for a short period after. Everquest was popular no doubt, but it's moment in the sun came when the genre was still under high-speed restriction and thus, niche. WoW's momentum matched with the internet revolution, when people actually started to look for the opportunities to really make usage of the power of the broadband. It deserved it, no doubt, at the time it was better than Everquest and Ultima Online, but my point still stands. If the internet revolution didn't happen, WoW would be nowhere near as popular as it was.
Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release.
I do not know what's your point in making stuff up but i this is pretty much a BS. Out of those people who played EQ some left for WoW, but definitely not all of them. But that didn't matter at the time as WoW reached out of the boundaries and grabbed people who had no idea of MMO's. Btw. are you really trying to tell me that WoW came out and EQ servers were empty all of a sudden? Please. As for the WoW killer failings, I already told you the reasons. It was at the right place at the right time letting it to define the genre and solidify it's position as a go to MMO.
B.) I can see you are from America so I'll hold back as I have no idea about the situation on your market. But I can assure you that here, in EU, people with no interest in the card games had actually no idea about their existence, even though Magic The Gathering is quite prominent. But for PC TCG's, it's basically the google thing I explained in my previous post. Hearthstone was first to actually remind us there are PC TCG's after all and as such, it had virtually no competition at all.
C.) I never said Diablo 3 is failure. What's wrong with you? Anyway
Tell me what game in its genre has overtaken it?
None. "Don't let the door hit you on your way out." Does it prove it's quality? It recieved massive criticism and a big exodus of players in first months. Does that mean anything to you or not?
Tell me how many more twitch views does Diablo 2 have than it?
I don't know if this is a trolling atempt or being serious but I rather go with the first choice so I don't have to roll my eyes. Comparing Diablo 3 to Diablo 2, a 13 year old game, to which D3 actually IS a direct successor is... hopefully just a trolling atempt. I thought were having a serious conversation. Please don't do that again.
Tell me it didn't sell millions of copies and is poised to do so again?
Yes it did sell millions of copies, more precisely 12. And no it isn't, at least initially. Initially it might sell millions, but definitely not 10 as the original did. For the initial sales I predict half of that number at most. How it will be then is written in the stars, but I still doubt it would reach 12 again...
You keep talking as if Blizzard has not been down this road over and over again. Everytime they make a new product it's always the same. Command and Conquer was the go to RTS, until Starcraft. Everquest and Ultima Online were the go to MMO, until WoW. And now LoL and Dota2 are the go to MOBA games, I wonder how well that will turn out.
The truth of matter is that Blizzard has always "made the mistake" of branching out to a genre already dominated by some big game for the last 5-10 years before blizzard's own title is released. Time and time again blizzard is doubted, and time and time again blizzard succeeds anyway.
Command and Conquer was the go to single-player RTS, it's strengths lied in graphics and FMV sequences, as Westwood never really adapt into multiplayer trend. Tell me a genre other than RTS that was "dominated" in a way that a game from a different company made it mainstream and defined it around itself and then Blizzard came and dethroned it. And don't come up with EQ pls, we already discussed that.
Since you obviously never played WoW or at least kept up with it; World of Warcraft and its development both in the beta and release was pushed most heavily by the top Everquest clans transferring to World of Warcraft and talking to developers about changes that needed to occur for end game content to be considered good.
You know why? Because Everquest raids were done, for the most part, by phone lists, wherein people took shifts searching boss spawns, making tonnes of phone calls for impromptu raids. Ultima Online had massive communities of people as well. And you know what happened when Everquest 2 and Ultima Online 2 were released? Nothing, because by then they had switched to playing World of Warcraft, were part of the development of World of Warcraft, and were the main pushers of content for world of warcraft.
B.) Since you don't seem to know anything about Magic the Gathering, EU and US markets for the game was massive and encompassing and, for the longest time, EU was the continent pushing strategy development and innovation for magic the gathering. Recently japan has had a surge of talent and the Pro Tours in japan were big hits. But Sweden, Germany, and France has had top players since the birth of Magic so your not caring about card games is actually just your own ignorance since EU has been a big magic hub for the past 10 years.
There are more online magic tournaments running right now than almost any other tournaments, I can log in at any time and have a swathe of choices between draft, standard, modern, etc...
Magic is also currently rising in popularity as the previous 2 sets have actually increased the number of MTGO accounts and increased the regular attendance of both local and large tournaments in both EU and the US. So no, you're wrong in your attempt to pretend that there isn't a juggernaut that is already holding the TCG market both online and offline not counting the hundreds of mobile apps also in the market but will never get big because if you're serious about TCG or CCG games, Magic the Gathering is the only one where you can make a living flying the world playing card games.
Rogue RPGs were very prevalent in the early 90's, but stopped after Diable 2 broke the market for it. Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, etc... were the biggest selling and top of the line RTS games, until Broodwar came out.
You're ignorance of the scenes and what developed in them is just your ignorance of them.
A.) While you are right about myself not following the EQ scene, and having no idea about people from EQ being in development for WoW, I don't really need it to refute your statement. All that I need to know is the fact that in this era (2003-2006) I was living in with my brother-in-law, who by that time played Everquest. WoW came, went by, and rose to stardom, and yet he was still playing Everquest in 2006 and there was still a lot of people around. So most definitely not everyone left for WoW.
B.) I don't really get which MTG you're talking about. If you are talking about the classic TCG, then you pretty much tell me nothing new. If you are talking about the videogame, than I can only disagree. Magic the Gathering in EU afaik is pretty much a card game for which cards, not PC's are required. Where did you take that I do not care about TCG's? I stated loud and clear that I play MTG. But I have still no idea that there is an MTG PC game. Because the actual real prominence and recognition came out from the real cardgame, not it's PC incarnation.
C.) RPG and ARPG are far apart. In this matter Diablo didn't dethrone anything it merely invented a new genre.
do you just make this stuff up? C&C had a huge multiplayer following.
here is a top C&C pro gamer here...
Thanks for the vid. What was the hassle for though? Basically any game can have a multiplayer following as long as it has multiplayer. The problem is not every game is designed with it in mindset. Want an example? Go play C&C and then go play Warcraft 2. Compare the experiences. C&C's just wasn't designed for multiplayer. None of it's strongpoints really mattered in multiplayer, which was an unbalanced mess. So no, my point still stands: C&C (with maybe a little exception in the form of Red Alert), were no real competitors for multiplayer RTS.
A.) So your proof for EQ is that your brother played it, disregard that the biggest and best EQ clans moved over to WoW and became a big part of what bulged the popularity of the WoW as a legitimate MMO, but since your brother still played that means there wasn't a shift? That's ridiculous.
B.) MTGO or MTG Online is a global game where people go online, buy cards, and play magic the gathering. It's been around for years and is the biggest name in the industry. People globally use it to test new brews and to just do daily tournaments. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that the only people who play magic are cardboard flippers, then once again you're being ridiculous. Very few people can afford to build decks for both online and offline since the price structure is exactly the same. Booster packs and individual cards sells as much in MTGO as it does in real life because it is its own industry. You pretending that it doesn't happen does not mean it isn't happening no matter how hard you bury your head in the sand.
C.) Action RPGs is not a new concept AT ALL. Nor is it a dead genre. There simply isn't very many other games in contention at the top of the heap outside of Diablo 2 and 3. You have to stretch to other genres like D20 rpgs like Dragon Age and Skyrim or Story RPGs like Last of Us, and Bioshock which sacrifices multiplayer balance for pure a purely singleplayer experience. Why? Because when you look at Angband, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Multiplayer sidescrollers, etc.... you'll realize that Diablo 3 is an amazing game only looking strange when compared to games outside its genre.
D.) Command and Conquer, Red Alert. and Age of Empires had a strong multiplayer scene with tournaments that had been happening pre-BW, and even during BW. THey had them because they were the best selling, most advanced, and most polished games of their time. Stop pretending that scenes don't exist just because they empirically prove you wrong.
Not as much as your desperate attempts to undermine me
We were talking about the cases where some game dominates the genre makes it mainstream and Blizzard comes and steals it's place in the sun. Not the other way around. You don't have to teach me history. My point still stands. What you brought up was waaay after Blizzard took over the RTS scene. When WW was actually in the position to directly compete with Blizzard for the RTS throne, it simply went the wrong way.
Butterfly kills Deckard Cain. Lord of Lies is a humorously pathetic lier. Villains make you cringe and want to punch someone in the face on a regular basis. What are we arguing here? Its Diablo man, get a grip.
On October 23 2013 07:06 NukeD wrote: Butterfly kills Deckard Cain. Lord of Lies is a humorously pathetic lier. Villains make you cringe and want to punch someone in the face on a regular basis. What are we arguing here? Its Diablo man, get a grip.
Datamined stuff from RoS implies Belial is a much better liar than we thought.
A.) So your proof for EQ is that your brother played it, disregard that the biggest and best EQ clans moved over to WoW and became a big part of what bulged the popularity of the WoW as a legitimate MMO, but since your brother still played that means there wasn't a shift? That's ridiculous.
I'm tired.
When WoW came out, it was at the same time as Everquest 2. So it not only came out against competition, but it was against competition with a massive history to it in Everquest. Everyone in Everquest bailed out on their old product and jumped ship to WoW despite WoW having all the problems it had during release
A.) While you are right about myself not following the EQ scene, and having no idea about people from EQ being in development for WoW, I don't really need it to refute your statement. All that I need to know is the fact that in this era (2003-2006) I was living in with my brother-in-law, who by that time played Everquest. WoW came, went by, and rose to stardom, and yet he was still playing Everquest in 2006 and there was still a lot of people around. So most definitely not everyone left for WoW.
B.) MTGO or MTG Online is a global game where people go online, buy cards, and play magic the gathering. It's been around for years and is the biggest name in the industry. People globally use it to test new brews and to just do daily tournaments. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that the only people who play magic are cardboard flippers, then once again you're being ridiculous. Very few people can afford to build decks for both online and offline since the price structure is exactly the same. Booster packs and individual cards sells as much in MTGO as it does in real life because it is its own industry. You pretending that it doesn't happen does not mean it isn't happening no matter how hard you bury your head in the sand.
Once again, you're from America and I have no idea of the situation there so I can't argue with you. But for as long as I am active in MTG, I've never heard about MTGO. I'll ask around if people actually know about it but I doubt it.
C.) Action RPGs is not a new concept AT ALL. Nor is it a dead genre. There simply isn't very many other games in contention at the top of the heap outside of Diablo 2 and 3. You have to stretch to other genres like D20 rpgs like Dragon Age and Skyrim or Story RPGs like Last of Us, and Bioshock which sacrifices multiplayer balance for pure a purely singleplayer experience. Why? Because when you look at Angband, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Multiplayer sidescrollers, etc.... you'll realize that Diablo 3 is an amazing game only looking strange when compared to games outside its genre.
Here we go again. Why are you pulling statements out of your arse? Quote me where did I say it's a dead genre. And ARPG was pretty much a new concept that came with Diablo. There was no other ARPG before. My point still stands...
D.) Command and Conquer, Red Alert. and Age of Empires had a strong multiplayer scene with tournaments that had been happening pre-BW, and even during BW. THey had them because they were the best selling, most advanced, and most polished games of their time. Stop pretending that scenes don't exist just because they empirically prove you wrong.
I'm starting to feel like a cycled code that has to repeat itself. I wonder when I actually spill out an error message instead. Anyway. Any game can have a multiplayer scene as long as it has multiplayer. We were talking about C&C's before and at the time none of them was developed with multiplayer in mind. Age Of Empires had it though, especially the sequel.
On October 23 2013 07:06 NukeD wrote: Butterfly kills Deckard Cain. Lord of Lies is a humorously pathetic lier. Villains make you cringe and want to punch someone in the face on a regular basis. What are we arguing here? Its Diablo man, get a grip.
Datamined stuff from RoS implies Belial is a much better liar than we thought.
EPT
Does it prove it's quality? It recieved massive criticism and a big exodus of players in first months. Does that mean anything to you or not?
