|
On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
|
Blizzard are still clearly interested in developing the Warcraft theme/lore, they are making a movie about it. I'm pretty sure they would make another Warcraft game somewhere down the road. Not to mention they are going to do Legion, I personally couldn't care for World of Warcraft anymore but will definitely watch the film.
|
On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years. There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
|
On February 29 2016 07:36 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years. There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW. Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious.
Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
|
On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:
I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
i think you mean Vivendi. Vivendi owned 6% of ATVI and cashed out about a month ago.
Vivendi has been a non-factor for at least 2.5 years.
|
On February 29 2016 07:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:
I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
i think you mean Vivendi. Vivendi owned 6% of ATVI and cashed out about a month ago. Vivendi has been a non-factor for at least 2.5 years.
No, I'm saying look back from 2003's perspective you could have people bitching about Vivendi. Everytime Blizzard makes a decision that people dont like, its apparently Activision's fault.
|
Brood War was made under Vivendi's ownership... as was WoW and WC3.
|
On February 29 2016 08:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Brood War was made under Vivendi's ownership... as was WoW and WC3.
You're not listening. I'm saying any criticism of WC3 because it was so different you could bitch about Vinvedi because WC3 was so different than anything else. Any big jump or small jump people are going to bitch about the owners. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't when it comes to doing something new.
|
and the quote "I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
would not apply unless you're saying people also thought SC1 and Brood War sucked as well.
where is this "old Blizzard" ... the Blizzard of pre-1998 before SC1 came out?
forgetting about this nit-picky detail.
yes, people will complain about whatever apparent corporate moves they see and assume Bob Kotick is telling David Kim's testing staff how to test the Nova Covert OPs 3rd mission., and Kotick wants a Siege Tank that does more damage.. etc.
|
I'm sure there are large differences in the way Vivendi treated with Blizzard and the way Activision is treating with Blizzard. It probably wasn't perfect before though (never took interest in Vivendi ownership of Blizzard before though I just knew about it). Many reasons why things can go right or wrong and people want different things  But the business model destroying games is a very real thing, as well as the shift in the way Blizzard makes games since WoW & Activision merge.
|
On February 29 2016 08:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
and the quote "I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
would not apply unless you're saying people also thought SC1 and Brood War sucked as well.
where is this "old Blizzard" ... the Blizzard of pre-1998 before SC1 came out?
You're messing my point completely. I'm not saying that's something I believe. I'm saying bitching at who owns a company is worthless criticism most of the time.
I'm trying to make a point by mocking people who bitch at Activision when Blizzard makes any decisions.
It's kinda like the Old Guard falacy. Let's say Chris Metzen left the company way in 2007 and we magically got the same EXACT stories we do now. We'd be bitching that Activision ruined the story themselves and we'd say "wow, I miss when Chris Metzen was working there, all the stories were amazing, they should have never let him get away. Activision ruined the story."
When the reality is the same people who did awesome decisions in the past, when they do something new can make something you dont like.
|
It's just better to be aware of this stuff so as not to fall to false expectations that they communicate in their marketing campaigns, we can get owned by this crap as gamers and communities if we're not careful (and developpers I'm sure). There are guys making plans to draw a maximized amount of people to buy their product (maybe multiple times) with shallow game making plans to simply appeal to them, marketing. When you make this type of choice as root in your game design it destroys the other root choices you could have made for making a great new unique game which would appeal to.. whoever likes it!
|
Blizzard is the only company from whom i pre-order games.
Usually i buy games that are 1+ years old at a steep discount based on the super-obvious fact that the games lasting power over those 1+ years show that it must be good.
|
If Microsoft decides to do Age of Empires 4 it would be the only game I can imagine myself pre-ordering. That will most likely never happen tho 
To be fair, I couldnt care less about WarCraft.
|
On February 29 2016 08:58 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:If Microsoft decides to do Age of Empires 4 it would be the only game I can imagine myself pre-ordering. That will most likely never happen tho To be fair, I could care less about WarCraft.
Ensemble Studios is gone. Their last game was Halo Wars. Its a cryin' shame because it was a really nice console RTS with an innovative control-scheme and a cult-like following. MS is renting out Creative Assembly to make Halo Wars 2.
AoE was never "my type of game"... but it was loved for many years. its a cryin' shame MS closed Ensemble.
|
On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now.
On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:36 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years. There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW. Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem. I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard." Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious. Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard.
I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer.
Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft.
But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense.
|
Pretty sure someone is going to make a pretty good custom map on DotA 2 that replaces sc2 as the most popular RTS.
They already have an amazing engine and a huge player base to play the game (anyone who already plays DotA 2 could try the custom map)
|
The game needs to be placed on a free model and make it more playable for the general public - I dont know how to do that exactly but it has been a successful method
A storyline needs to be put in place and then added to the environment of the game
|
On February 29 2016 11:20 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now. Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:36 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years. There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW. Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem. I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard." Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious. Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't. The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard. I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer. Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft. But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense.
What? The expansions did bring new stuff to the table and make the game waaay better than before. I don't see where you get this idea of "alienation" from. There's no Wings of Liberty elitists that insist HOTS ruined the game. It's gone in a better direction.
I totally get that part about unit identiy, but there's always interesting strategic gameplay options if you deviate from that kind of stuff. That what Artosis and other members of the community have argued for things like tank medivac gameplay.
|
On February 29 2016 13:48 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 11:20 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now. On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:36 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though. Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years. There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW. Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem. I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard." Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious. Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't. The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard. I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer. Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft. But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense. What? The expansions did bring new stuff to the table and make the game waaay better than before. I don't see where you get this idea of "alienation" from. There's no Wings of Liberty elitists that insist HOTS ruined the game. It's gone in a better direction. I totally get that part about unit identiy, but there's always interesting strategic gameplay options if you deviate from that kind of stuff. That what Artosis and other members of the community have argued for things like tank medivac gameplay.
So you would honestly say SC2 is an overall improvement over SC1/BW? Not just graphically or meeting current UI standards, but the actual gameplay itself you feel is an improvement?
I would not say that. I felt WoL was a lil bland and needed work, but it was just a start, it was a decent start, and that is what I expected from a first release. Just a few problems to be addressed and they would be good. Thats how every Blizz game is at release. Blizzard usually makes massive improvements in expansions and makes the game much more playable. HotS basically took a few of the problems the game had and made them worse, without even touching most of them. They focused only on the problems of the final meta of WoL, rather than the design issues the game itself had. LotV imo continued this trend, but also removed much of the strategic gameplay & decisions with the new tech speed/timings/economic growth.
I would take the play style of any of the 3 BW races, over their SC2 versions. Any day. I don't feel any of them is a real improvement over the originals. The racial identity was lost and replaced with messiness.
And by "alienate", I mean each successive expansion more players are lost. More than a dozen friends played WoL together in my gaming group. HotS only 2 of my training partners played the game, and 3 ppl I know total. LotV I was the only one. None of the reasons people quit have been addressed. Nothing makes them want to give it another chance. That was a trend of the game as a whole. Unlike all other Blizzard expansions, the SC2 expansions didn't really turn things around, nor did they bring more people in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
