|
On June 08 2019 06:37 MockHamill wrote:
Overwatch is pure crap. I get car sick even trying to play the game for one minute.
FPS is boring as hell.
Diablo is mildly entertaining but lacks substance.
The only Blizzard games I have ever liked is SC2 and WC2.
WC3 is one of the worst games in gaming history. It is not even a RTS but it pretends to be. It is a gloried action game more shallow then the Kardashians. It is also spawned the MOBA genre which is unforgivable.
Blizzard was a great company but those days are gone. I doubt we will ever get another SC2 from them.
Overwatch is pure fun. People that get car sick playing it are weak minded individuals.
WC3 is one of the best games ever made.
Kardashian jokes are old.
MOBA genre is fun.
|
On June 08 2019 06:37 MockHamill wrote:
Overwatch is pure crap. I get car sick even trying to play the game for one minute.
FPS is boring as hell.
Diablo is mildly entertaining but lacks substance.
The only Blizzard games I have ever liked is SC2 and WC2.
WC3 is one of the worst games in gaming history. It is not even a RTS but it pretends to be. It is a gloried action game more shallow then the Kardashians. It is also spawned the MOBA genre which is unforgivable.
Blizzard was a great company but those days are gone. I doubt we will ever get another SC2 from them.
So let me get this straight: Overwatch is crap and Blizzard has gone downhill because you personally don't like fps? Have some perspective man, please. The world doesn't evolve around you or your preferences, and neither does Blizzard. (Or my wishes for that matter, or we'd have Wc4 and Sc3 by now).
Also WC3 was a frikkin masterpiece. Fight me.
|
Why on earth would the be making an Overwatch 2? I really don't understand. They put millions into the Overwatch league? Why replace the game instead of update it?
Man... it really sucks they cancelled a new PC title. The only positive from last years Blizzcon was that 'a lot is in the pipeline'
but that is now a little less as well  . I'd love a Starcraft battlefield
|
I got it. They can use this downtime to make a new RTS. Hear* me out.
A prehistoric era RTS where aliens crash on an earth-like planet and battle the tribal humans. Though they have technology that dwarfs the Earthlings / we outnumber them by 1000-1. Humans are the Zerg.
Its a ‘The Lost Vikings’ prequel.
|
On June 08 2019 07:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Why on earth would the be making an Overwatch 2? I really don't understand. They put millions into the Overwatch league? Why replace the game instead of update it? Man... it really sucks they cancelled a new PC title. The only positive from last years Blizzcon was that 'a lot is in the pipeline' but that is now a little less as well . I'd love a Starcraft battlefield
From the rumors, it's apparently focused on having a big PvE element. It could be that "Overwatch 2" is a temporary name for what may end up being a PvE-focused spinoff that complements rather than replace the original game.
|
Well, there goes my dream of slithering around and spitting spines.
|
Norway25014 Posts
I remember playing starcraft ghost multiplayer, it was an fps where you could control various units, including mutalisks.
Hard to make remotely balanced if you give a lot of options, but super fun.
|
i would want blizzard to make new games
i'm not holding my breath though...
by the way 25 rts games coming out in 2019
i would want blizzard to lead.. and it will not anymore.. very sad.
there are many avenues yet to appear and so many copypastus of old games done :/
In this forest of unknown and new,
i would want a cross between fps and rts..
making the link between the two genres would work.. just have to do it with creative people and not trust lazy devs that have had their chance for over 20 years to advance the genre and have failed.
Fps are looting based games, just make the loot something vital, something you organize as a team every game, this in a real time management setting .. the social management would be the next thing (you got the loot so all the teams are against you, "x" opponent has the loot and you can "team up" with opponents "y" and "z" to make "x" team lose it etc).
Rps are organization skill based, this can easily be added to an fps setting..
the armies your produce are "played"/steered by fps players.. each unit is a gamer
and x gamers get to inform them .. coordinate them etc
you make the team leaders have to play "sclike godmode view" from using "consoles that dish out data/info on the map .. while being "covered" by fps players...
That would be new?
Real sad thing is that strategy games are just starting out.. and companies are milking it instead of building it..
thing is if you milk a cow you can't eat it...
|
On June 08 2019 15:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I remember playing starcraft ghost multiplayer, it was an fps where you could control various units, including mutalisks.
Hard to make remotely balanced if you give a lot of options, but super fun.
Wow you actually got to play it? Still sour about that game...
|
On June 08 2019 16:05 fluidrone wrote:i would want blizzard to make new games i'm not holding my breath though... by the way 25 rts games coming out in 2019i would want blizzard to lead.. and it will not anymore.. very sad. there are many avenues yet to appear and so many copypastus of old games done :/ In this forest of unknown and new, i would want a cross between fps and rts.. making the link between the two genres would work.. just have to do it with creative people and not trust lazy devs that have had their chance for over 20 years to advance the genre and have failed. Fps are looting based games, just make the loot something vital, something you organize as a team every game, this in a real time management setting .. the social management would be the next thing (you got the loot so all the teams are against you, "x" opponent has the loot and you can "team up" with opponents "y" and "z" to make "x" team lose it etc). Rps are organization skill based, this can easily be added to an fps setting.. the armies your produce are "played"/steered by fps players.. each unit is a gamer and x gamers get to inform them .. coordinate them etc you make the team leaders have to play "sclike godmode view" from using "consoles that dish out data/info on the map .. while being "covered" by fps players... That would be new? Real sad thing is that strategy games are just starting out.. and companies are milking it instead of building it.. thing is if you milk a cow you can't eat it...
You want Giants: Citizen Kabuto. It was a flop. Cute how you are creating fantasy games. Like a Kindergarten child makes up a perfect world. As if those "crazy fun sounding" crossover games over worked out
|
TBH, This is why I quit playing blizzard games: they don't give a fuck.
|
On June 08 2019 22:19 BreAKerTV wrote:
TBH, This is why I quit playing blizzard games: they don't give a fuck.
Dont give a fuck about what? Dont give a fuck about patching Warcraft 3? Releasing Warcraft 2/Diablo for modern systems? Releasing wow classic? Supporting Starcraft Remastered? Supporting Starcraft 2?
Why havent you quit Blizzard when they scratched Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans. Arent you a bit late? Or are you just in for the circlejerk?
User was banned for this post.
|
Honestly, I don't mind, I'm almost relieved. I prefer they use their Shooter IP (OW) to make a good shooter. Keep Starcraft as an RTS and give us a good SCIII when the time is right. Making a Starcraft Shooter just to have a new Starcraft release ain't it.
~~~~~
maybe D4 good
|
There is something that really concerns me in this article.
Ares first entered development in 2017 as an experiment to see what the team could do with StarCraft on the Overwatch engine. An engine is a suite of tools and reusable code that developers use to make games, and Blizzard has been hoping to move as many games as possible on the same technology in order to make their infamously slow game productions more efficient.
To what extend they plan to use same technology between games? Are all future games going to use Overwatch engine as base? At least they seem to focus on this with recently released Workshop to OW and talks about wanting to have guilds and other in-game communities cross between games and not just for OW. For near future this shared technology could surprisingly mean that Diablo 4 uses also OW engine. For possible WC4 or SC3 this could mean that they are heavily different from previous games because of using engine that isn't intended for RTS. Thus it is probably more likely to have something very different for SC and WC franchises, like the cancelled FPS. Also there is a comment from Jason Schreier below the article stating:Problem is, I’ve talked to a lot of Blizzard people over the past few months and one of the things I’ve heard quite a bit is that Activision doesn’t see any money in real-time strategy games.
|
United States11865 Posts
I think that's accurate though. Players faced a harsh reality when they bought SC2 after casually playing BW and War3. Suddenly they were thrust into the deep end of the RTS pool with an ultra-challenging competitive game, and although SC2 did sell extremely well casually, they weren't going to stick around for the expansions and they were wary about any future ventures into RTS after seeing the true face of the genre. FPS games, by contrast, are simple point and shoot and are played with friends in larger teams for a better casual experience. That's where the money is.
I also wouldn't worry too much about engines. Engines are designed to be flexible, powerful, and genre-agnostic. We've all heard the horror stories about the EA decree to apply the Frostbite engine to all internal development, but the lesson there is to understand the risks when you are deploying a proprietary engine with a learning curve without support from the team that built that engine. Strategically, it's an excellent decision to use the same engine for every project because in theory it makes it easier for engineers to ramp up on new projects because the structure is more familiar. Remember that World of Warcraft came from a modified Warcraft 3 engine (it is disappointing that the supposedly-masterclass Galaxy Engine for SC2 didn't see wider deployment as originally intended, though).
|
On June 08 2019 22:15 ocolisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 16:05 fluidrone wrote:i would want blizzard to make new games i'm not holding my breath though... by the way 25 rts games coming out in 2019i would want blizzard to lead.. and it will not anymore.. very sad. there are many avenues yet to appear and so many copypastus of old games done :/ In this forest of unknown and new, i would want a cross between fps and rts.. making the link between the two genres would work.. just have to do it with creative people and not trust lazy devs that have had their chance for over 20 years to advance the genre and have failed. Fps are looting based games, just make the loot something vital, something you organize as a team every game, this in a real time management setting .. the social management would be the next thing (you got the loot so all the teams are against you, "x" opponent has the loot and you can "team up" with opponents "y" and "z" to make "x" team lose it etc). Rps are organization skill based, this can easily be added to an fps setting.. the armies your produce are "played"/steered by fps players.. each unit is a gamer and x gamers get to inform them .. coordinate them etc you make the team leaders have to play "sclike godmode view" from using "consoles that dish out data/info on the map .. while being "covered" by fps players... That would be new? Real sad thing is that strategy games are just starting out.. and companies are milking it instead of building it.. thing is if you milk a cow you can't eat it... You want Giants: Citizen Kabuto. It was a flop. Cute how you are creating fantasy games. Like a Kindergarten child makes up a perfect world. As if those "crazy fun sounding" crossover games over worked out
I don't think Giants: Citizen Kabuto was a flop ? I think it was a nice game with probably some limitations which was interesting to play for a short time, something like that. There was also Battlezone 2 which was a really interesting attempt at mixing RTS and FPS. This game was enjoyed by many for quite a while I think. It does have its own limitations and balance or depth issues which imo is what matters for how long and how successful a game like that can be. There just haven't been many RTS/FPS hybrids. It takes sometimes a lot of attempts to make something really really good. If new attempts are made at this genre, I think it could make really interesting games.
Note: In BattleZone 2, you could play 1vs1 or XvsX on different maps (3D world). One player is the commander and can give order to build stuff, and also pilot vehicles to fight. The others on his team can only pilot (unless maybe he relegates the ability to build but I think you couldn't do that?). The goal was I think to kill the enemy commander. Maybe there were a bunch of different modes. It was quite playable and interesting in 1vs1, you go around pilot and manage expanding and building from 1st person or from bunker (enter bunker building use panel this puts you on top view for giving movement and building orders to your units from this view instead of 1st person). Piloting combat vehicles yourself to make more efficient attacks/defense etc. Very interesting, I've noted lack of depth over time due to balance mostly but I played this game quite a lot and loved it (including some 1vs1 LAN and some XvsX online 2 teams).
There was also Urban Assault, a really different very interesting similar game (RTS/FPS hybrid) from a few years before that. Played it a lot, mostly solo but it does have a multiplayer mode. Again like this game is really interesting but it likely has balance and depth issues for the longer run. Imo there is totally potential in this genre tbh.
|
Northern Ireland10698 Posts
On June 08 2019 22:25 ocolisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 22:19 BreAKerTV wrote:
TBH, This is why I quit playing blizzard games: they don't give a fuck. Dont give a fuck about what? Dont give a fuck about patching Warcraft 3? Releasing Warcraft 2/Diablo for modern systems? Releasing wow classic? Supporting Starcraft Remastered? Supporting Starcraft 2? Why havent you quit Blizzard when they scratched Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans. Arent you a bit late? Or are you just in for the circlejerk?
They’ve absolutely historically done a good job, one of the best I can think of in supporting games post release for sure.
I said this in the wake of the Diablo Immortal disaster that yes, it was a bad move on their part and really ill-judged, but let’s at least be proportionate. Didn’t go down too well :p
Not sure if my nostalgia lenses are at play, I don’t recall things in the past being quite so knee jerk and angry, I suppose the internet does bring these things out.
I always have a laugh to myself imagining if Hideo Kohima dropped the ‘you dont play as Solid Snake in MGS2’ bomb today, I can’t even beginning to imagine that internet firestorm.
|
On June 08 2019 06:37 MockHamill wrote:
Overwatch is pure crap. I get car sick even trying to play the game for one minute.
FPS is boring as hell.
Diablo is mildly entertaining but lacks substance.
The only Blizzard games I have ever liked is SC2 and WC2.
WC3 is one of the worst games in gaming history. It is not even a RTS but it pretends to be. It is a gloried action game more shallow then the Kardashians. It is also spawned the MOBA genre which is unforgivable.
Blizzard was a great company but those days are gone. I doubt we will ever get another SC2 from them.
You were doing so well until you bashed WC3.
|
On June 08 2019 22:19 BreAKerTV wrote:
TBH, This is why I quit playing blizzard games: they don't give a fuck.
By the way: What pure gaming company do you support nowadays? Let me guess: "Steam". Yeah "Steam" is doing a great job developing games. Great company. What was their latest release again?
|
they probably realized it wasnt gonna rake in any money for them so they cancelled it, since over watch and diablo have high profit margins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
