EPT
Anyway, it sure was quiet about Diablo Immortal this last year. Makes me curious what happened there. The stuff they showed was pretty much a done game and I thought it was just localisation and a bit of testing and bug solving left to do
Blizzard cancelled StarCraft FPS game to focus on OW2, Dia…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Harris1st
Germany6914 Posts
Anyway, it sure was quiet about Diablo Immortal this last year. Makes me curious what happened there. The stuff they showed was pretty much a done game and I thought it was just localisation and a bit of testing and bug solving left to do | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25094 Posts
On September 16 2019 15:57 washikie wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 16 2019 15:38 washikie wrote: I think Starcraft has a cool thematic universe with alot of popularity. But the story itself was not all that great at least SC2 story. SC1 story was actually really cool. I think that this is just a general trend for blizzard these days. look at world of warcraft. Its a great game with a great thematic universe but the current story telling just doesn't do it for me, probably for alot of people. Alot of current blizzard games plots feel like a Marvel movie.. And maybe that's ok since its feels like the plot is their to move the game along not the other way around. As long as the plot feels sturdy and provides good motivations for what happens maybe that's all you need if everything else like the world building and game play is solid. But it is definitely the way their games tend to go recently. I still enjoy them, kind of like how I can enjoy the simplicity of a marvel movie with lots of cool superheroes and explosions even though sometimes the plot is really not that interesting. But It would be better if the plots where more engaging, I think they have definitely tried to make things better if you look at the writing of Wow bfa they have tried to create big shocking moments like the burning of teldrasil or the interhorde conflict, but It just does not grasp me. I think theirs just a lack of emotional investment and sympathy for their characters. Like in Starcraft 1 when Kerrigan is betrayed by Mengsk It was a moment that really surprised me and I remember being prity shocked the story took that turn. But in Wow BFA when Sylvanis burns down the nightelf tree city of teldrasil, I just did not have that kind of reaction even though the consequence one persons life as opposed to thousands is a big difference. I think it comes down to the way they build stories up we don't really get to see the characters grow and evolve into different people like kerrigan, and Mengsk did. or when they do it often doesn't make a whole lot of sense, the build up just does not feel right. When Kerrigan betrays every one, or when Arthas culls Stratholm I was prity taken aback and I think its because we got to grow with those characters and see them change over time. Their actions also make sense in the context of events where as the horde alliance war just feels realy forced. with Sylvanis launching a crazy surprise attack over rare resources, instead of a gradual build up of conflict that gets increasingly bitter. Still a Cool thematic universe can be the basis for a good story, and a good game. I actually did enjoy ghost a bit more than LOTV because the scope was alot more reasonable and nova, although cool and powerful isn't some alien god being fighting an evil alien god being. I also think you can make cool games despite a bad plot. I actually did enjoy HOTS alot, even though the jim-kerrigan love plot really made no sense at all and I think because for me they nailed the gameplay and zerg themes, when I played that campign The missions realy made me feel like I was winning the way the zerg would win, It has this snowballing overwhelming force kind of feel to it which was alot of fun. For the same reason I realy enjoyed the wol campaign it felt like you were a scrappy group of rebels making do with what tech and allies you could find. Sc2 has great world building it has cool and interesting races and themes. I think if they made another game and nailed the plot it could really let those other elements shine. SC2 has the potential to make great spin off games, even though I think the Lore and the plot of sc2 took a disappointing turn. Giving things the ghost treatment where we make things smaller scale and more personal is a good direction for the franchise think. I hope they expand on it. Wow tldr, I really should not try to write things before I go to bed. I largely agree so it wasn’t a bad idea to write at that time Having replayed all of WC3, SC2 and SC1 relatively recently I’m pretty torn between SC2 being worse in the way you make out (I’m not too familiar with modern WoW stuff), or if I just think the older stuff is better because I experienced it when I was younger and had experienced less media in general etc. I think it’s almost certainly both of those things. I think SC and WC3 are both just kinda solid, not amazing by any means, but SC2 is a bit schlocky Illidan had understandable reasons to do the things he did, Arthas too, even Mengsk did. Plus SC2 basically just retconned a Reynor who vowed to kill Kerrigan way too quickly. Personally some changes I would have made that I think would have made way more sense, or at least made things more interesting to my sensibilities. 1. Mengsk is a good ruler who genuinely tries to protect his domain, or at least thinks he is the only man for the job. At least make him a bit grey, and Reynor by consequence more of a rebel driven by revenge and not necessarily the 100% good guy outright. 2. Reynor still wants to kill Kerrigan. This always felt off to me that he’d seemingly flipped from Brood War, feels out of character, plus he has way too little pushback from the rest of the Raiders on this issue. For some reason Tychus is the only one who verbalises on this, when in universe she is basically a genocidal space Hitler. 3. Kerrigan can still be the ‘chosen one’ even if it is a bit cheesy. Reynor wants his revenge but ultimately has to choose between that and the greater good. Some of the pieces as they stand don’t really make any sense to me and tbh feel like they were changed way down the pipeline. Clearest example to me is the Zeratul prophecy missions. Zeratul appearing to Reynor and revealing that Kerrigan is critical to defeating the new threats in Koprulu and beyond. It feels almost redundant with Reynor already intending to try and save Kerrigan, Zeratul is not exactly convincing him of anything he’s not already intending, whereas a Reynor who actively wanted Kerrigan dead would need this kind of stuff to convince him to change course. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 16 2019 23:38 Harris1st wrote: Your post read like it's a given that we get these big announcements this year. I am not so sure about that after last years disaster. That's what I meant Anyway, it sure was quiet about Diablo Immortal this last year. Makes me curious what happened there. The stuff they showed was pretty much a done game and I thought it was just localisation and a bit of testing and bug solving left to do They claimed it was "pretty much done" back in February. No idea what the holdup is. Maybe they want to do a release date announcement at this Blizzcon, tho I'd be very careful about that if I were them considering last year. Maybe if they run it right before the announcement of D4, it'll smooth out a lot better. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On September 16 2019 23:45 Wombat_NI wrote: I largely agree so it wasn’t a bad idea to write at that time Having replayed all of WC3, SC2 and SC1 relatively recently I’m pretty torn between SC2 being worse in the way you make out (I’m not too familiar with modern WoW stuff), or if I just think the older stuff is better because I experienced it when I was younger and had experienced less media in general etc. I think it’s almost certainly both of those things. I think SC and WC3 are both just kinda solid, not amazing by any means, but SC2 is a bit schlocky Illidan had understandable reasons to do the things he did, Arthas too, even Mengsk did. Plus SC2 basically just retconned a Reynor who vowed to kill Kerrigan way too quickly. Personally some changes I would have made that I think would have made way more sense, or at least made things more interesting to my sensibilities. 1. Mengsk is a good ruler who genuinely tries to protect his domain, or at least thinks he is the only man for the job. At least make him a bit grey, and Reynor by consequence more of a rebel driven by revenge and not necessarily the 100% good guy outright. 2. Reynor still wants to kill Kerrigan. This always felt off to me that he’d seemingly flipped from Brood War, feels out of character, plus he has way too little pushback from the rest of the Raiders on this issue. For some reason Tychus is the only one who verbalises on this, when in universe she is basically a genocidal space Hitler. 3. Kerrigan can still be the ‘chosen one’ even if it is a bit cheesy. Reynor wants his revenge but ultimately has to choose between that and the greater good. Some of the pieces as they stand don’t really make any sense to me and tbh feel like they were changed way down the pipeline. Clearest example to me is the Zeratul prophecy missions. Zeratul appearing to Reynor and revealing that Kerrigan is critical to defeating the new threats in Koprulu and beyond. It feels almost redundant with Reynor already intending to try and save Kerrigan, Zeratul is not exactly convincing him of anything he’s not already intending, whereas a Reynor who actively wanted Kerrigan dead would need this kind of stuff to convince him to change course. Wow, you really propose some great plot changes there that would change the feel of the whole game while largely keeping the missions and overall story the same. Hell I wanna play that game, sounds so much better =P On the topic of blizzcon reveals I just want them to go public with ANY interesting upcoming game, they haven't done anything that have interested me since lotv. (Honestly reforged is starting to get my interesting, but only just now) Anything new that sounds fascinating would make me so happy, mobile game, no thanks, shooter pvp, no thanks, moba shit, no thanks. Blizz made their legacy on games with high quality singe player content, would love for more of that. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 17 2019 00:20 Shuffleblade wrote: Wow, you really propose some great plot changes there that would change the feel of the whole game while largely keeping the missions and overall story the same. Hell I wanna play that game, sounds so much better =P On the topic of blizzcon reveals I just want them to go public with ANY interesting upcoming game, they haven't done anything that have interested me since lotv. (Honestly reforged is starting to get my interesting, but only just now) Anything new that sounds fascinating would make me so happy, mobile game, no thanks, shooter pvp, no thanks, moba shit, no thanks. Blizz made their legacy on games with high quality singe player content, would love for more of that. Single player games like World of Warcraft? Or Heartstone? Starcraft and Warcraft has had some pretty good single player bits, but their mainstay has always been multiplayer. With the arguably exception of Diablo, Blizzard had always had its focus, and legacy, squarely on multiplayer. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
|
Starecat
937 Posts
And how the hell the casual gamers enjoy competitive FPS where when your skill levels are low to mid luck plays a heavy hand on winning or losing and the combat is onesided. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25094 Posts
On September 17 2019 18:11 Starecat wrote: Wonder why devs are so hellbent on making FPSs for competitive gaming, make a damn Fighting Game or any other genre. And how the hell the casual gamers enjoy competitive FPS where when your skill levels are low to mid luck plays a heavy hand on winning or losing and the combat is onesided. Because it’s way easier to make a game where lower skill level players can at least get kills and feel they’re making progress vs better players. Especially a game like Overwatch with its team elements and mechanical ceiling being lower than say, Quake. And there’s less learning to do than things like MOBAs. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 17 2019 18:11 Starecat wrote: Wonder why devs are so hellbent on making FPSs for competitive gaming, make a damn Fighting Game or any other genre. And how the hell the casual gamers enjoy competitive FPS where when your skill levels are low to mid luck plays a heavy hand on winning or losing and the combat is onesided. Same reason everyone tried to make a mmorpg for a while. Battlefield and CoD dominated the market for a long time, and you could keep the money machine churning by releasing a new game every year. Or, if you don't want to do the work of making something new, then Team Fortress 2 paved the way for lootboxes. And a good fps is fun to play no matter what skill level you are, just like a good rts. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On September 17 2019 00:36 Excludos wrote: Single player games like World of Warcraft? Or Heartstone? Starcraft and Warcraft has had some pretty good single player bits, but their mainstay has always been multiplayer. With the arguably exception of Diablo, Blizzard had always had its focus, and legacy, squarely on multiplayer. Are you saying hearthstone is part of Blizzards most successful games that drove its legacy as an amazing game studio? I disagree. Multiplayer has indeed been as you say, a mainstay but its greatest games (besides wow which were released when Blizzard was already a legend) were focused on the single player experience. Warcraft 1, had an expansive single player campaign, it had a 1 v 1 competetive mode but most of the games focus was single player. Warcraft 2, much like the first game had a 1 v 1 competetive mode but its largest part was its single player content which was spectacular. Diablo had multiplayer were you could play the single player content together with up to three friends but its content was mainly single player driven. Starcraft also had its main focus on single player content with multiple well fleshed out and generally praised campaigns, the games multiplayer opened the door for continous entertainment after the campaigns. Few were the people that bought starcraft and jumped into multiplayer without playing the single player. Diablo 2, same as Diablo 1, the single player content could be enjoyed with others in multiplayer but there were no content developed for multiplayer specifically. Warcraft 3, much like Starcraft single player was the main focus of the game, the game is critically acclaimed for its story, its world building and its characters which lay the foundation for how popular WoW became. Single player experience came first and Bnet would develop WC3 into becoming a game where people actually bought and downloaded the game but skipped the campaign and played dota. However that was not how it launched or how it were developed in house, that was what the community did with the open tools Blizzard gave the community. THEN came wow, after Blizzard had already made a name for itself. The previous mentioned games had multiplayer but the single player experience was at the forefront which is the opposite of how overwatch, heroes of the storm or hearthstone (at launch) worked. The latest games from Blizzard doesn't focus on single player, most of their new games don't even have single player. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 17 2019 19:39 Shuffleblade wrote: Are you saying hearthstone is part of Blizzards most successful games that drove its legacy as an amazing game studio? I disagree. Multiplayer has indeed been as you say, a mainstay but its greatest games (besides wow which were released when Blizzard was already a legend) were focused on the single player experience. Warcraft 1, had an expansive single player campaign, it had a 1 v 1 competetive mode but most of the games focus was single player. Warcraft 2, much like the first game had a 1 v 1 competetive mode but its largest part was its single player content which was spectacular. Diablo had multiplayer were you could play the single player content together with up to three friends but its content was mainly single player driven. Starcraft also had its main focus on single player content with multiple well fleshed out and generally praised campaigns, the games multiplayer opened the door for continous entertainment after the campaigns. Few were the people that bought starcraft and jumped into multiplayer without playing the single player. Diablo 2, same as Diablo 1, the single player content could be enjoyed with others in multiplayer but there were no content developed for multiplayer specifically. Warcraft 3, much like Starcraft single player was the main focus of the game, the game is critically acclaimed for its story, its world building and its characters which lay the foundation for how popular WoW became. Single player experience came first and Bnet would develop WC3 into becoming a game where people actually bought and downloaded the game but skipped the campaign and played dota. However that was not how it launched or how it were developed in house, that was what the community did with the open tools Blizzard gave the community. THEN came wow, after Blizzard had already made a name for itself. The previous mentioned games had multiplayer but the single player experience was at the forefront which is the opposite of how overwatch, heroes of the storm or hearthstone (at launch) worked. The latest games from Blizzard doesn't focus on single player, most of their new games don't even have single player. The problem is you used the word "legacy", yet have seemingly forgotten that World of Warcraft is older than Blizzard as a company was when they first released it (At least from when they changed their name). So taking an arbitrary period that is less than half as long than the company's lifetime and call it their "legacy" is a bit random. WoW is what catapulted their brand into the mainstay it has today, and is perhaps their absolute biggest "legacy". You are correct in the fact that their focus was on the singleplayer for a while, like most games back then. But all of their games have gotten the classic status because of their multiplayer mainstay, not because of their (very good) single player components. People aren't still playing Broodwar 21 years after its release because of its single player. So with with the vast vast vast majority of their popularity (and money) coming from multiplayer, it's not exactly a pikachu shocked face moment when they continue to focus on those areas. That said, Overwatch 2 (or whatever they're going to call it) is supposedly a PvE game. Probably more likely coop than single player, but still very interesting. It's also a world and story that is absolutely ripe to be fleshed out some more. Really looking forward to hearing more about that one. Diablo 4 is probably going to be a single player game, like its predecessors. However I only see it moving further away from what made D2 so great, so my hype meter for it is a bit lower. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On September 17 2019 21:14 Excludos wrote: The problem is you used the word "legacy", yet have seemingly forgotten that World of Warcraft is older than Blizzard as a company was when they first released it (At least from when they changed their name). So taking an arbitrary period that is less than half as long than the company's lifetime and call it their "legacy" is a bit random. WoW is what catapulted their brand into the mainstay it has today, and is perhaps their absolute biggest "legacy" Yes, you are right regarding the age of wow and how it is their biggest success but I disagree with the fact that it was what made their brand a mainstay. It was a mainstay before wow and it was their success with games focused on single player content that made it possible. Wow is their biggest success, as you say thei biggest legacy but they were already one of the most popular game studios in the world at that point. That was why everyone was playing wow in beta even though there were tons of competitors for that market. On September 17 2019 21:14 Excludos wrote: You are correct in the fact that their focus was on the singleplayer for a while, like most games back then. But all of their games have gotten the classic status because of their multiplayer mainstay, not because of their (very good) single player components. People aren't still playing Broodwar 21 years after its release because of its single player. I disagree, the games became cult classics because of their single player content, the amount of players that played the single player campaigns of wc1, wc2, sc or wc3 yet never touched the competetive matchmaking is huge. Only a small percent even tried to go into serious PvP, if the games wouldn't have had the single player content they wouldn't have been cult classics but you know what, take away the multiplayer and they still would have been. The games had multiplayer, it is why the bw is played today in korea sure but it was not the focus of the studio and it is not what made the games hugely popular. On September 17 2019 21:14 Excludos wrote: So with with the vast vast vast majority of their popularity (and money) coming from multiplayer, it's not exactly a pikachu shocked face moment when they continue to focus on those areas. Man, stop being so condescending, its obvious we are of different opinion here but you don't have to be rude about it. Actually Blizzard made most of their money pre wow on single player content, as I've previously explained most people bought the game and played the single player content. Multiplayer content in wc, wc1, wc2, sc and wc3 did not give Blizzard any revenue, all their money until wow was made on single player content because they failed to monetise the multiplayer part of their games. Up until wow all their success was based on single player content, yes I actually would make a surprise face when a company totally abandones (besides Diablo) what made the company one of the greatest in the world. Everyone wants to make "all the money" not just "a lot of money" I get that and multiplayer games gives the greatest revenue scaling since making skins is cheap as shit. Its still sad and I still wish Blizzard still made games focused on the same thing that made them great in the first place. On September 17 2019 21:14 Excludos wrote: That said, Overwatch 2 (or whatever they're going to call it) is supposedly a PvE game. Probably more likely coop than single player, but still very interesting. It's also a world and story that is absolutely ripe to be fleshed out some more. Really looking forward to hearing more about that one. Diablo 4 is probably going to be a single player game, like its predecessors. However I only see it moving further away from what made D2 so great, so my hype meter for it is a bit lower. Yeah I hope the Overwatch project is actually interesting and with good PvE elements that isn't just L4D multiplayer. Give me story, world building and character development. D4 could be great, what they have said about it does sound promising. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6914 Posts
The problem with Multiplayer earning way more money is too many damn people are too rich and/ or stupid and pay tons of money for pretty much nothing. Sad really. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 17 2019 21:41 Shuffleblade wrote: Man, stop being so condescending, its obvious we are of different opinion here but you don't have to be rude about it. I did not intend to be rude or condescending, so if that's what you read my tone as, then I will stop. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 17 2019 22:06 Harris1st wrote: I agree with all of the above! Nicely written Mr. Shuffleblade The problem with Multiplayer earning way more money is too many damn people are too rich and/ or stupid and pay tons of money for pretty much nothing. Sad really. As far as lootboxes, yes that is absolutely a problem. Whales, as the industry calls them, are victims in this case. However monetizing multiplayer itself isn't so much about people being stupid or rich, but more about keeping a game alive long after it otherwise would have been after the game sales have stopped. Blizzard is a bit unique when it comes to keeping their games alive long after they've stop earning anything from them, like Broodwar. However even then it's mostly small balance patches, adjusting a variable here and there. It's not actively being developed on. Overwatch (with its admittedly unethical lootbox system) has had loads of content added to it after the fact (including hours of animated videos on par with Pixar quality), not to mention the cost of keeping dedicated servers up and running. This is not something we would get if they didn't make anything off of it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25094 Posts
On September 17 2019 22:06 Harris1st wrote: I agree with all of the above! Nicely written Mr. Shuffleblade The problem with Multiplayer earning way more money is too many damn people are too rich and/ or stupid and pay tons of money for pretty much nothing. Sad really. It’s not really a problem with the users, Ok some people are insane but I imagine most of the markets are teens paying the odd 5 dollars or whatever for something they think is cool. The issue is that having a huge huge multiplayer hit with monetisation is that it’s that pie that publishers want a piece of. Something can be a giant hit, make way more money than it cost to make and is still a failure because they’re chasing the next League/FIFA/Fortnite levels of money I think it’s even more pronounced in the games industry than film or music, this chasing of the biggest possible payday with anything beneath that being seen as insufficient and being phased out. Really sick of it myself because it’s homogenised a lot of game design, everything has a levelling system, gear etc. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6914 Posts
On September 17 2019 22:27 Excludos wrote: As far as lootboxes, yes that is absolutely a problem. Whales, as the industry calls them, are victims in this case. However monetizing multiplayer itself isn't so much about people being stupid or rich, but more about keeping a game alive long after it otherwise would have been after the game sales have stopped. Blizzard is a bit unique when it comes to keeping their games alive long after they've stop earning anything from them, like Broodwar. However even then it's mostly small balance patches, adjusting a variable here and there. It's not actively being developed on. Overwatch (with its admittedly unethical lootbox system) has had loads of content added to it after the fact (including hours of animated videos on par with Pixar quality), not to mention the cost of keeping dedicated servers up and running. This is not something we would get if they didn't make anything off of it. I do understand that if you want your game to be developed further after it's release, you have to do something in return. What I really hate on is any kind of RNG in this system, which is just the tip of the iceberg. Everything RNG related should just be forbidden. Period! I don't mind paying for and Addon or Expansion which brings me another 25 - 50 hours of fun. I remember back at the release of SC2 they announced it will be in 3 episodes. The outcry was huge back then. To expensive they said. Nowadays this would be the fairest system ever ^^ Some companies do this with overpriced DLC's, which I don't like but still can understand. Most of these DLCs don't bring much to the table and I for one rarely buy one because it is almost never enough to get me back to that specific game. Even the DLC's that were labeled as "great" like Witcher 3 stuff, or more recently the Kingdome Come stuff. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8062 Posts
On September 18 2019 19:03 Harris1st wrote: I do understand that if you want your game to be developed further after it's release, you have to do something in return. What I really hate on is any kind of RNG in this system, which is just the tip of the iceberg. Everything RNG related should just be forbidden. Period! We all agree there. It's the biggest blight upon gaming atm. It shouldn't be legal, and probably won't be for long. It just came so quickly the laws haven't had time to update yet. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
The developer investment in building a competitive framework like a leaderboard is relatively small, but it organically drives long-term retention as the best players seek to stay on top. No matter how difficult a game is, or how much content a game has, players will inevitably conquer all of it. Pushing players toward those truly impossible goals, like becoming a competitive champion, is what keeps that small segment of the overall community invested for a very long time. That's how you foster a hardcore fanbase. It's only in recent times where developers have realized that their communities are willing to engage in multiple avenues of competition. Previously, it was limited to skill. Now that games have unlimited purchases, players will compete in spending power through opportunities to obtain rare items. Some players have every Dota and League skin for every character, for example. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25094 Posts
Some players are more motivated by obtaining things within games, and are happy to grind and grind for that. Or are hardcore completionists/achievement hunters. I don’t think those two ‘camps’ are anything new, I suppose what is is that you can shortcut to get stuff. I think the latter group is probably more prevalent in gaming than the former anyway, but even if they were equivalent you can’t really monetise a process of getting good at a game for its own satisfaction in a way you can with gear and stuff. | ||
| ||
