Kinda Curious on Communities thoughts that Blizzard was working on another shooter based on Starcraft Universe?
Blizzard cancelled StarCraft FPS game to focus on OW2, Dia…
Forum Index > SC2 General |
vik7
United States227 Posts
Kinda Curious on Communities thoughts that Blizzard was working on another shooter based on Starcraft Universe? | ||
riotjune
United States3357 Posts
| ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12179 Posts
| ||
lestye
United States4098 Posts
As much of a fan of RTS I am, I love the idea of a Starcraft asymmetrical battlefield type of game. I hope they can explore that option once they ship D4/OW2. | ||
Brutaxilos
United States2572 Posts
| ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On June 07 2019 11:35 lestye wrote: One thing I don't think people are talking about, which is kinda important, is that I think this is Team 1. Which means that they havent been working on a new RTS game after Nova Covert Ops was finished. As much of a fan of RTS I am, I love the idea of a Starcraft asymmetrical battlefield type of game. I hope they can explore that option once they ship D4/OW2. half of them are running multiplayers the rest has been doing this project for 2 years i assume ? but sc2 multiplayers aint so hot lately and i think they only need 20 or 30 employees for balance team and the rest will move to another rts project | ||
DreamlnCode
United Kingdom77 Posts
Wake me when they work on a new RTS. | ||
figq
12519 Posts
On June 07 2019 11:26 Excalibur_Z wrote: A rocky path.Just want to say that this project was being headed up by Dustin Browder, and between this and Heroes of the Storm and arguably the foundational design vision of SC2 (further discussion about that is happening in the Starcraft II - A Lifecycle thread), seems to be a tough streak for DBro | ||
vik7
United States227 Posts
On June 07 2019 12:47 figq wrote: Overwatch 2? Hm, I find Overwatch to be the perfect multiplayer shooter for me, hope they don't ruin it with 2. A rocky path. Hmm I disagree Blizzard missed opportunities with overwatch like they did with starcraft 2, they hardly ever admit a mistake give a noncomital answer, remember the days when players asked blizzard to disclose mmr, and how long it for them to finally show it? | ||
ETisME
12078 Posts
| ||
blunderfulguy
United States1412 Posts
Diablo 4? I'm craving more Diablo, badly. Overwatch 2? ... Why? I guess I'll just hope that whatever cool ideas the team had for Ares will go into OW2 or a new IP. Or, who knows, maybe more SC2, SC3, or War4. *I'm also... hesitant about War3: Reforged. I haven't gotten to check out anything new with it in a while, but I hope that it turns out awesome in general and sales-wise otherwise there probably won't be any good RTS news from Blizz in a long time. (Has there been anything new with that since the Culling of Stratholme demo? New model/texture/graphics or gameplay stuff?) | ||
pzlama333
United States273 Posts
Anyway, the good news is that we have Diablo 4 (not the mobile one) and Overwatch 2 at least. | ||
fastr
France901 Posts
I don't understand Blizzard's vision for the future. Their 2 most succesful franchises are Warcraft and Starcraft. 2 RTS in different universe with incredibly complex gameplay and skill ceilings, 2 of the most successful esports title in history. Blizzard became the pc gaming juggernaut it is today based on those 2 franchises. Then WoW came along and redefined MMO's while providing what seems to be an inexhaustible amount of cash flow. Since Blizzard published Starcraft 2 in 2010, what games have they made that were a success for esport? Diablo 3 sold well but it's mostly a solo game with almost no competitive facet. Hearthstone was another success and still makes a lot of money for Blizzard, but I'm not one to consider a card game an esport. Heroes of the Storm was an esport failure and Blizzard lost a lot injecting cash in a still-born game that didn't bring anything new and exciting to the genre. Overwatch is a fun and casual fps with interesting new ideas, but as an esport it's a joke, stale and repetitive metagame, utterly boring to watch, I feel overwatch league is going to turn into another artificial life support from Blizzard, losing them more money, and the game will probably die as soon as they pull the plug. Diablo 4 will sell incredibly like the third one, but will they achieve any sizable player retention? Overwatch 2 barely 3 years after the first one sounds like a confession that they didn't achieve what they want with the first one. At this point I don't care if it's Starcraft 3, Warcraft 4 or a new lore, I just want Blizzard to not abandon the RTS genre completely. They're the last developers I trust to keep the flame alive. If they don't, I fear we're gonna be stuck with MOBA's and battle royale's for the foreseeable future. | ||
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On June 07 2019 10:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: An FPS from a zerg's perspective sounds interesting. But at the same time I don't think there will be anybody too upset that a Starcraft FPS got cancelled. And it never ceases to amuse me that sites like Kotaku still use the pictures from WoL alpha that they got permission to use from Blizzard way back when. Aliens vs Predators was good ! (Espacially the second one when you start to play as facehugger) But from all of those discussion i'm wondering if i'm the only person that don't want multiplayer focused games. I would very much like a good title for Single player with a nice story etc... I mean... BioShock didn't need multiplayer... Right ? | ||
gotchaman
18 Posts
| ||
LUCKY_NOOB
Bulgaria1262 Posts
Its been out for a long time... Seriously now, Im not surprised so I cant be disappointed... Give em another 20 years or so... They will come around to it. Gotta be optimistic! | ||
GreasedUpDeafGuy
United States398 Posts
| ||
AlgeriaT
Sweden2195 Posts
| ||
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
i believe blizz did forseen this long ago and thus wow and sc ghost were a thing but it seems they are yet to figure out an escape way for sc IP | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
| ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On June 07 2019 16:05 seemsgood wrote: problem is we are living in a era where even our dogs play fucking fortnite or moba games and only rpg or fps type can survive well nowaday thats why to keep a franchise stay relevant,making a well known genre like shooting or rpg is a must i believe blizz did forseen this long ago and thus wow and sc ghost were a thing but it seems they are yet to figure out an escape way for sc IP Last I checked, Sc2 did pretty well sales and reception wise. SC3 would be a pretty good move forward for the Starcraft franchise imo.. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
Especially if something is either divergent from current trends, or lacks an obvious way to monetise it post-sale, or worse, both. Blizzard aren’t exactly reticent in axing projects, but they do usually trot out the ‘it wasn’t up to brand quality’ line, it I suppose they have done that though with projects that were announced and even showcased like Ghost. | ||
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
I would have bought a SC2 FPS, but definitly not overwatch 2. | ||
kajtarp
Hungary419 Posts
| ||
_fool
Netherlands663 Posts
On June 07 2019 15:41 AlgeriaT wrote: As an oldtimer, all I want is a Starcraft 3 where the visuals aren't designed mainly for kids. Yeah! SC universe, but with a Company of Heroes-like grittiness. Mud, dust, smoke, debris. More small skirmishes. I'd love that | ||
Ziggy
South Korea2103 Posts
| ||
onlystar
United States971 Posts
On June 07 2019 15:41 AlgeriaT wrote: As an oldtimer, all I want is a Starcraft 3 where the visuals aren't designed mainly for kids. if we have learned one thing in can only become worse.. when you have a masterpiece like starcraft broodwar any new addition feels underwhelming & flawed new does not mean better is so often what you come across in life. | ||
Legan
Finland280 Posts
The good news is that at least Diablo 4 should be on its way, OW2 can be good for OW but they should not depend on it too much. I think older fans want games for older franchises. Maybe remastering and reforging is just so that they can offer us something, while they make the new engine for future games, but then again why would they have been making FPS for SC. | ||
oGsChess
23 Posts
| ||
SamirDuran
Philippines884 Posts
| ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 Posts
On June 07 2019 10:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: An FPS from a zerg's perspective sounds interesting. But at the same time I don't think there will be anybody too upset that a Starcraft FPS got cancelled. And it never ceases to amuse me that sites like Kotaku still use the pictures from WoL alpha that they got permission to use from Blizzard way back when. Of course I'm upset! How can anybody not be upset? A Starship Troopers kinda FPS? Count me in! OW2 will probably go along the lines of Destiny, Division and Anthem I guess. Some singleplayer to warm you up with the "endgame" beeing PvP heavy | ||
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
| ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On June 07 2019 16:20 Excludos wrote: Last I checked, Sc2 did pretty well sales and reception wise. SC3 would be a pretty good move forward for the Starcraft franchise imo.. so do total war games tho.sc3 would be fine because they still have us but no company dislike muneh u know,making a spin off game to expand the fanbase like WoW alongside with sc3 aint seem to be a bad choice | ||
-NegativeZero-
United States2136 Posts
| ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On June 07 2019 11:26 Excalibur_Z wrote: Just want to say that this project was being headed up by Dustin Browder, and between this and Heroes of the Storm and arguably the foundational design vision of SC2 (further discussion about that is happening in the Starcraft II - A Lifecycle thread), seems to be a tough streak for DBro That's not fair to DB. Heroes of the storm is a fun game, could definitely have been a blizzard brawler type of game. The *foundation* of SC2 is fantastic, but it was marred by forcing it in a direction it wasn't designed to go. The whole idea in WoL was small maps, low eco, high action, and it did that pretty well. That's just not what the community wnated. | ||
TheSky123
15 Posts
| ||
virpi
Germany3598 Posts
On June 07 2019 16:18 Excludos wrote: OW2? Seems like a weird choice. I can't quite see what they plan to do with that which they can't implement into the already existing game. I hope it doesn't end up feeling like just a slightly large patch for OW1. My thoughts exactly. Unless they go for a complete overhaul, which is very risky considering the huge success Overwatch had. OW2 feels way too soon right now. OW1 might have its flaws, but the playerbase still is huge and will remain that way for at least 4 to 5 years. Given the fact that Blizzard always takes its time, an OW2 release for 2025 sounds kinda realistic. Maybe D4 will come around 2022/23. | ||
CicadaSC
United States841 Posts
| ||
renaissanceMAN
United States1840 Posts
| ||
Tchado
Jordan1831 Posts
| ||
chipmonklord17
United States11944 Posts
| ||
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On June 07 2019 11:26 Excalibur_Z wrote: Just want to say that this project was being headed up by Dustin Browder, and between this and Heroes of the Storm and arguably the foundational design vision of SC2 (further discussion about that is happening in the Starcraft II - A Lifecycle thread), seems to be a tough streak for DBro Terrible, terrible damage. | ||
j2digital
11 Posts
They were probably having a hard time figuring how they could nickle and dime their potential player base without alienating them "too" hard. Or even though they said it was using the OW engine they probably were going to try to shove it on a phone behind pay to win walls. Funny they are making an OW2 instead of just regularly releasing content for the first one. I just think- Fortnite is doing great for years and its the same map? Because they constantly add new seasons, new weapons, and change things on the map/have events. I don't even play or enjoy Fortnite but they have it figured out. Blizzard is probably are having a hard time monetizing OW this late into its life and didn't build it modular enough to add some of the above. So instead of a FPS SC game: Welcome OW2 where you pay for the (same) game AND have payable seasons! And probably payable characters! Why not payable maps too!? Why isn't the amount of time you play charged too? Who knows what mess they'll make of D4. Blizzard is a joke. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
I’d absolutely prefer to see some new mainline RTS titles myself, but to make out there’s no demand for other IPs or new ones outside of that genre is preposterous | ||
Jan1997
Norway671 Posts
| ||
Doink
75 Posts
I thought the hype was gone years ago. Hero shooters are sooooooooo boring. Sacrificing. a SC game for that is lol | ||
franzji
United States580 Posts
also that overwatch 2 stuff, my guess is it's gonna be a large overwatch expansion you have to buy or something not a standalone game. | ||
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
Still, Blizzard is in something of a pretty serious mess right now, and it's probably not looking too good going forward. | ||
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51324 Posts
Instead we get Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2? Like what Overwatch has barely been out that long and the last 12 months has dive bombed but they have also made a whole massive financially draining franchise league of it...seems bit crazy to be like yeh lets make Overwatch 2? | ||
Vutalisk
United States679 Posts
| ||
BadHabits
Canada45 Posts
| ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
On June 07 2019 18:57 InfCereal wrote: That's not fair to DB. Heroes of the storm is a fun game, could definitely have been a blizzard brawler type of game. The *foundation* of SC2 is fantastic, but it was marred by forcing it in a direction it wasn't designed to go. The whole idea in WoL was small maps, low eco, high action, and it did that pretty well. That's just not what the community wnated. I disagree I played a lot of wol and I think the game today is allot better than back then. Just look at how bad some of the matchups were on the small low eco maps that blizzard started with. Remember steps of war where Terran could realistically push from their base to yours with bunkers turrets and tanks? Rember the 4 gate PvP meta? Remember 2 rax meta? Rember 5 rax reaper meta? Rember how underpowered Zerg was prior to queen buffs and bigger maps and how over powered they were after. Wol was fun but problem ridden the game is so much better today. | ||
parrotpitaya
Germany37 Posts
| ||
mierin
United States4938 Posts
| ||
darhumewin
United States16 Posts
On June 07 2019 10:38 riotjune wrote: Were they spending entire meetings focusing on the design of the marine's boot again probably | ||
MockHamill
Sweden1793 Posts
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. | ||
PanN
United States2828 Posts
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. | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
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. | ||
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30538 Posts
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 | ||
Achamian
82 Posts
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. | ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
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. | ||
MrFreeman
207 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28256 Posts
Hard to make remotely balanced if you give a lot of options, but super fun. | ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
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... | ||
rotta
5560 Posts
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... | ||
ocolisa
10 Posts
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 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... 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 | ||
BreAKerTV
Taiwan1656 Posts
| ||
ocolisa
10 Posts
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. | ||
Damnight
Germany222 Posts
~~~~~ maybe D4 good | ||
Legan
Finland280 Posts
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. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12179 Posts
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). | ||
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On June 08 2019 22:15 ocolisa wrote: 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. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
On June 08 2019 22:25 ocolisa wrote: 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. | ||
litLikeBic
Canada105 Posts
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. | ||
ocolisa
10 Posts
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? | ||
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
| ||
Pascal1p
20 Posts
On June 07 2019 10:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: An FPS from a zerg's perspective sounds interesting. But at the same time I don't think there will be anybody too upset that a Starcraft FPS got cancelled. And it never ceases to amuse me that sites like Kotaku still use the pictures from WoL alpha that they got permission to use from Blizzard way back when. Then you are definitely wrong. I am honestly very upset about it, it one of the only things I would want to see from blizzard. | ||
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
which won't happen. | ||
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On June 09 2019 03:33 KalWarkov wrote: I'm all for it if Diablo 4 is a successor of Diablo 2 and Path of Exile and doesn't contain too many Diablo 3 features. which won't happen. yeah^^ I would want it to have improvements over D2 too such as more open end game (less narrow) both in PvM challenges and gear choice, anti rush measures (don't let rushing behind a OP character be the most efficient method cause its easy and boring, also make it so that there are some drawbacks for going faster balance the playstyles some more essentially) anti cheat and some other new quality things too. More stats or more customization, more depth more pvp more value for lower items or ways to turn them into something useful/of value, nice and smarter ladder objectives, etc^^ more balance for pvp (less one shot or dice roll) and even pvm (again less one shot, probably avoid putting things like rejuvenation potions in the game, make it less easy to instantly leave a fight instead), skill builds using varying amounts of skills can be 10+ or why not even more (wow goes into the 40 skills and more) (D2 does have room for skill builds using up to 12+ skills but can be hard to make a good 10+ skills build and maybe sometimes its too easy to make strong builds based on very few skills at times), perhaps less power difference between higher level or most geared chars and the others, and game doesn't become easy if your character is strong (but rather the opposite!). Better balance on the gear choices and wide choices. Could list more. but i don't think it will happen. who knows i could make more suggestions such as account wide "points" or values you can increase/modify playing your characters and that you can use/spend with your other characters, balance playstyles between players who would play a lot 1 main character or multiple characters, high level or not different amounts etc | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On June 09 2019 03:01 ocolisa wrote: 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? Steam isn't a company, it's a product. Valve is the company, and they haven't been a games company since dota 2, nor have they pretended to be. But surprisingly, their latest game was released last year. It just sucked and no one bought it. This year they released a VR headset instead | ||
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
| ||
ocolisa
10 Posts
On June 09 2019 07:44 Excludos wrote: Steam isn't a company, it's a product. Valve is the company, and they haven't been a games company since dota 2, nor have they pretended to be. But surprisingly, their latest game was released last year. It just sucked and no one bought it. This year they released a VR headset instead Thanks Butters. But didnt people say how awesome and great artifact is? "Hearthstone>Trash", "ARTIFACT GAME FOR MEN!!!!" Looks like the majority is just full of shit when they hating. Still wondering what company they support Can someone explain why a company like blizzard who doesnt give a shit about Starcraft does that? I thought the game is not big enough to be worth to be supported | ||
neutralrobot
Australia1025 Posts
On June 08 2019 23:25 Damnight wrote: 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 After D3, I just... can't imagine D4 being a great game. I think D2 will always be the definitive Diablo game, and after that the rest will always be just kinda high-production fanfic. | ||
halomonian
Brazil255 Posts
| ||
Ronski
Finland262 Posts
-"Blizzard told the team that Ares was getting axed (alongside a second unannounced mobile project)" Which also leads me to believe that the teams that were relocated were moved to diablo:Immortal and some overwatch mobile port. | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On June 09 2019 13:09 halomonian wrote: Wasn't OW born in part from what once was stacraft:ghost anyway? Not at all. OW was born out of the Titan project, which was meant to be a scifi rpg fps of some kind | ||
Agh
United States832 Posts
| ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
Diablo 4 was indirectly hinted at during last Blizzcon. I am afraid it is also a multi-platform title an no PC hardcore title. Canceling a Starcraft-based game, again, is of course not what I wanted to hear. | ||
outscar
2788 Posts
| ||
WaesumNinja
210 Posts
On June 08 2019 16:05 fluidrone wrote: i would want a cross between fps and rts.. 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? This isn't new, for instance Natural selection 2 did this, and last time I played nobody cared what the rts player commanded, everyone just slugged it out like any normal fps. | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On June 11 2019 01:29 WaesumNinja wrote: This isn't new, for instance Natural selection 2 did this, and last time I played nobody cared what the rts player commanded, everyone just slugged it out like any normal fps. Didn't one of the Battlefield games do this as well? Wasn't that completely pointless? People don't care unless you try to make it realistic and add a little bit of roleplay into the equation, and for that Arma 3 is the closest we have. But that's far to hardcore for the average gamer I'm afraid. The average gamer isn't fond of having to put aside 2 hours for a single mission, where the first 30 minutes is spent planning and scouting, while the remaining 1.5 hours is spent dead because you got unlucky. | ||
raga4ka
Bulgaria5676 Posts
| ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
On June 11 2019 02:05 Excludos wrote: Didn't one of the Battlefield games do this as well? Wasn't that completely pointless? People don't care unless you try to make it realistic and add a little bit of roleplay into the equation, and for that Arma 3 is the closest we have. But that's far to hardcore for the average gamer I'm afraid. The average gamer isn't fond of having to put aside 2 hours for a single mission, where the first 30 minutes is spent planning and scouting, while the remaining 1.5 hours is spent dead because you got unlucky. Battlefield 2, 2142, and 4 had a commander mode. The single commander player could give orders to squads and use powers like scans, supply drops, and artillery strikes. The role felt very exclusive and hard to get, so more recent Battlefield games have moved some of those powers into elite classes or squad leaders. I remember Battlefield 2 commanders were mostly glorified spotters for pinging out enemies on the mini-map. Command and Conquer: Renegade was a neat take on the RTS/FPS hybrid, even though it didn't have a commander role. Starcraft: Ghost looked like it was going to be an evolution of that, and it would've been interesting to see this cancelled Starcraft FPS iterate on that idea even further. | ||
Parrek
United States893 Posts
On June 09 2019 12:48 neutralrobot wrote: After D3, I just... can't imagine D4 being a great game. I think D2 will always be the definitive Diablo game, and after that the rest will always be just kinda high-production fanfic. D3 was great after reaper of souls launched. Sure it's not a game you can play indefinitely like PoE because they're not throwing out a ton of new content, but I spent a few hundred hours having a blast and still haven't played all the classes. The grind for new gear is the joy of those games. And there's still a ton of really fun content. | ||
Highways
Australia6098 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24917 Posts
On June 11 2019 09:29 Highways wrote: They should just kill Diablo already are you really that much of a Diablo hater? | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
I can’t say I hate it, never just really got the fuss about it. Whatever though gaming companies have to cater to markets and not my personal tastes | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On June 07 2019 16:28 Wombat_NI wrote: Gaming seems to be in a pretty wonky state where publishers seem to have set the bar of success at the WoW/CoD/Fortnite levels of numbers and won’t take any kind of risk on things that can’t hit those really atypical and inflated heights. Especially if something is either divergent from current trends, or lacks an obvious way to monetise it post-sale, or worse, both. Blizzard aren’t exactly reticent in axing projects, but they do usually trot out the ‘it wasn’t up to brand quality’ line, it I suppose they have done that though with projects that were announced and even showcased like Ghost. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Publishers are so risk adverse now a days that its easier to get excited by indy devs, with some exceptions. That being said, I think it would make more sense for Blizzard to make a WC4 than SC3 for the following reasons. 1. Warcraft as an RTS was more micro focused than Macro focused, indicating a WC4 would also be more micro based. 2. Micro based gameplay is flashier and more personal than macro based, at least for viewership, it would also be easier to follow as you'd have fewer units onscreen.. 3. Micro based gameplay could, potentially be easier to balance, as you have less instances of certain units becoming OP through critical mass. 4. Its just been way, way, way longer since we've had a WC based RTS. On the other hand WC4 has the big problem of existing in the same space as WOW and it seems like, for the most part, Blizz have sort of kept it to one genre per IP, although this might be changing. | ||
abuse
Latvia1923 Posts
Something like planetside maybe, with the 3 races fighting for power on a map, expansions, etc. | ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On June 11 2019 17:16 abuse wrote: Honestly, a proper large-scale starcraft FPS could be awesome. Something like planetside maybe, with the 3 races fighting for power on a map, expansions, etc. It doesn't even have to be. Alien vs Predator in Starcraft. BOOM. You'll be a zealot, DT, stalker and end as a pilot of a carrier! Marine part stays Marine, but without motion detector. Zergling -> Baneling. Hydralisk! And a bonus part as an ultralisk. Maybe even the sleezy infestor! It's not like there's no opportunity to do a good shooter from SC world, but it wouldn't be possible to milk it forever with microtransactions and "games as a live service" so they don't care. The rest was written above me. | ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 Posts
On June 11 2019 05:02 eviltomahawk wrote: Battlefield 2, 2142, and 4 had a commander mode. The single commander player could give orders to squads and use powers like scans, supply drops, and artillery strikes. The role felt very exclusive and hard to get, so more recent Battlefield games have moved some of those powers into elite classes or squad leaders. I remember Battlefield 2 commanders were mostly glorified spotters for pinging out enemies on the mini-map. Command and Conquer: Renegade was a neat take on the RTS/FPS hybrid, even though it didn't have a commander role. Starcraft: Ghost looked like it was going to be an evolution of that, and it would've been interesting to see this cancelled Starcraft FPS iterate on that idea even further. I loved C&C Renegade. Was so sad when they announced there will never be a Renegade 2 I mean, balance sucked, graphic was sub-par and they made some odd design choices. But oh my god was this a fun LAN game back then | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
On June 11 2019 16:27 Destructicon wrote: Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Publishers are so risk adverse now a days that its easier to get excited by indy devs, with some exceptions. That being said, I think it would make more sense for Blizzard to make a WC4 than SC3 for the following reasons. 1. Warcraft as an RTS was more micro focused than Macro focused, indicating a WC4 would also be more micro based. 2. Micro based gameplay is flashier and more personal than macro based, at least for viewership, it would also be easier to follow as you'd have fewer units onscreen.. 3. Micro based gameplay could, potentially be easier to balance, as you have less instances of certain units becoming OP through critical mass. 4. Its just been way, way, way longer since we've had a WC based RTS. On the other hand WC4 has the big problem of existing in the same space as WOW and it seems like, for the most part, Blizz have sort of kept it to one genre per IP, although this might be changing. RTS seems to fall into the zone where even if it’s a huge success, it’s never successful enough, or it’s not currently in vogue with trends. I quite like a competitive RTS having at least 5-10 years of a run with gradual content added before the next mainline entry, I think rushing sequels you fragment competitive scenes and there’s less fully fleshing out of games and possibilities, plus it’s harder to come up with anything genuinely new or interesting the more you have to do it, chances are you put your best ideas into your first game and tweaking it works better. I’m definitely in favour of WC4, I love WC3 and RTS but not WoW, and that game is bloody old now. Plus I agree 100% on your other points as far as it pertains to people’s general tastes. SC2 is too macro focused and fast for many people to enjoy playing, even people who enjoy watching, WC3 is a bit more sedate and micro is fun I wonder if Warcraft Reforged is not for me, it’s for Blizzard testing the waters with a proven product that needs a lick of paint to see how many non RTS veterans/fans it can pull in. Specifically the MOBA crowd due to WC3 being that genre’s grandfather, as well as the WoW crowd who might like that universe but have never played RTS Then if that does really well, WC4 would strike me as more likely. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
But at the same time the RTS niche has never died off and I suspect it will always have fans well into the future, making it still worthwhile for someone to invest into it. You also raise an interesting point with Blizzard potentially testing the waters with WC Reforged, but if we're going by that assumption than it probably means they have no interest in releasing a new RTS for another 5 years. | ||
digmouse
China6280 Posts
On June 11 2019 19:52 Destructicon wrote: Yeah, we're in this weird space where major AAA devs won't invest into an RTS as they feel it will never rise up to the level of a FPS, RPG, MoBA or other popular franchises. But at the same time the RTS niche has never died off and I suspect it will always have fans well into the future, making it still worthwhile for someone to invest into it. You also raise an interesting point with Blizzard potentially testing the waters with WC Reforged, but if we're going by that assumption than it probably means they have no interest in releasing a new RTS for another 5 years. Microsoft just started a studio dedicated to Age of Empires, is releasing AoE2 DE and working on AoE4, sure they have Game Pass to fill but still. | ||
argiveajax1
2 Posts
for real though, i think an mmo rts is completely possible and could be very interesting. | ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On June 09 2019 08:42 brickrd wrote: starcraft is great but the story is nothing. starcraft is famous for being a great RTS, not for having good writing. a starcraft FPS is a step away from what the franchise is good for. it's an RTS or it's worthless its moar like sc2 story changed ur view about this game imo it used to be dark like DC batman until blizz ruined the setting a well executed spin off with awesome gameplay could make us forget what is gud in its rts counterpart and not considering blizz got top notch art and character design skill | ||
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On June 09 2019 07:44 Excludos wrote: Steam isn't a company, it's a product. Valve is the company, and they haven't been a games company since dota 2, nor have they pretended to be. But surprisingly, their latest game was released last year. It just sucked and no one bought it. This year they released a VR headset instead afraid steam might become current blizzard if that fat man reallllly know how to count to three tho.thier games were too iconic for them to take the risk. only blizz and bethesda got the ball to make sequel and any one has enough courage to do that deserve a cookie regardless of success or fail | ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On June 12 2019 13:17 seemsgood wrote: afraid steam might become current blizzard if that fat man reallllly know how to count to three tho.thier games were too iconic for them to take the risk. only blizz and bethesda got the ball to make sequel and any one has enough courage to do that deserve a cookie regardless of success or fail Larian just announced BG3, that takes huge balls considering how is BG 1 & 2 remembered. Ubisoft just released The Division 2, considering the shitstorm about the first Division it took probably even bigger balls than those of Larians. Divinity Original Sin 2, Pillars of Eternity 2, Wasteland 3(!!), GOD OF WAR, Red Dead Redemption 2, Dark Souls 3, Uncharted 4, Civilization VI - and that's just some huge names which were not shitty games and are a sequel. it's not just Blizzard and Bethesda... Considering Bethesda's latest steps(F76 to be precise) and Blizzard's last year Diablo fiasco I dare to say that the games I named are better addition than what these companies did in 2018/19. Considering the previous parts of some of these games it took big balls to release a sequel. | ||
Latham
9507 Posts
On June 12 2019 16:40 deacon.frost wrote: Larian just announced BG3, that takes huge balls considering how is BG 1 & 2 remembered. Ubisoft just released The Division 2, considering the shitstorm about the first Division it took probably even bigger balls than those of Larians. Divinity Original Sin 2, Pillars of Eternity 2, Wasteland 3(!!), GOD OF WAR, Red Dead Redemption 2, Dark Souls 3, Uncharted 4, Civilization VI - and that's just some huge names which were not shitty games and are a sequel. it's not just Blizzard and Bethesda... Considering Bethesda's latest steps(F76 to be precise) and Blizzard's last year Diablo fiasco I dare to say that the games I named are better addition than what these companies did in 2018/19. Considering the previous parts of some of these games it took big balls to release a sequel. I don't think The Division 2 took more balls to announce and decide to develop than Baldur's Gate 3 simply because Ubisoft doesn't know what shame is. They didn't feel ashamed of how they launched Div1, how they kept updating it or how it was at the end of its life cycle. They just decided to do dip into a relatively fresh IP once again and milk it for what its worth. If it worked (and it did) Div2 is way better than Div1, hey, awesome! If it didn't? Put the IP on ice for a few years and try milking again afterwards in the future) Larian is smaller and can't just laugh it off. They put their good name on the line and possibly their whole company on that future release. That takes confidence and balls of brass, akin to Dad of Boy that you mentioned. Anyhoooo... I was actually pretty sad and shocked at the news that the 1st person shooter in the SC universe was cancelled. I'd gobble that shit up through my nose TBH. I also like many many people on this site want to see a proper RTS from what feels like the only company that still knows how to make them in the year of our Lord 2019, but I personally wouldn't mind Alien vs Predator - esque game set in the SC universe. I do hope they know what they're doing with Diablo 4. I was actually devastated when they announced (or leaked?) that they scrapped the 2nd Xpack for Diablo 3. I genuinely believe that Reaper of Souls was an amazing expansion that redeeemed and revitalized the base game. Is Diablo 3 as good as say Path of Exile? Hell no. But still good enough to go back to when you get bored of PoE and want to binge play the next best ARPG hack n slash on the market for 2-3 weeks. | ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
Yeah, I would love a game like AvP from SC2. | ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 Posts
On June 12 2019 19:30 deacon.frost wrote: I'll agree with you, Latham. My point with the rest of the games was that other companies do release sequels. While Ubi doesn't know the shame, they may have pulled out EA(this game never happened, look elsewhere - e.g. ME:Andromeda, appears to be Anthem scenario too) as TD1 was a great selling game so I believe it payed for itself. Yeah, I would love a game like AvP from SC2. But imagine the shitstorm if it sucks. Blizz needs a succes story after all the drama and fails | ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 Posts
Overwatch mobile? Starcraft Battle Royal? An actual new PC game? So far the theories always mention some sort of Overwatch 2'ish game with PvE content, as well as Diablo 4 Blizzcon 2019 official poster: Mecha Tyrael (HotS) - probably new event? Sylvanas (WoW) - dunno, not really following WoW. Another expansion? Tracer (OW) - OW2 / PvE DLC Barbarian dude (Diablo) - Diablo 4??!!?? or Dibbles Immortal Egon Stetmann (SC2) - some Co-Op stuff probably Elise (Hearthstone) - dunno. Some expansion of some sort | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
On September 13 2019 23:35 Harris1st wrote: Sooooooo with the next Blizzcon around the corner, what do you guys expect? Overwatch mobile? Starcraft Battle Royal? An actual new PC game? So far the theories always mention some sort of Overwatch 2'ish game with PvE content, as well as Diablo 4 Blizzcon 2019 official poster: Mecha Tyrael (HotS) - probably new event? Sylvanas (WoW) - dunno, not really following WoW. Another expansion? Tracer (OW) - OW2 / PvE DLC Barbarian dude (Diablo) - Diablo 4??!!?? or Dibbles Immortal Egon Stetmann (SC2) - some Co-Op stuff probably Elise (Hearthstone) - dunno. Some expansion of some sort I’d really just love to be surprised by something totally out of left field, although I don’t see that being especially likely either. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20156 Posts
Sylvanas (WoW) - dunno, not really following WoW. Another expansion? Yes there will be WoW expansion announcement, probably patch 8.3 details too. Probably talk about WoW classic as it smashed their expectations (they started with two english-pvp servers and have now expanded to 18 to meet demand) | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On September 13 2019 23:35 Harris1st wrote: So far the theories always mention some sort of Overwatch 2'ish game with PvE content, as well as Diablo 4 Well they're not so much theories as it's confirmed that they're working it. The poster just tells us we're going to hear about it at this Blizzcon | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20156 Posts
On September 14 2019 00:02 Excludos wrote: Well they're not so much theories as it's confirmed that they're working it. The poster just tells us we're going to hear about it at this Blizzcon Sources on this? I didn't catch the confirmation | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On September 14 2019 00:03 Cyro wrote: Sources on this? I didn't catch the confirmation Post 1 in this very thread? Outtake: "Both of those games will be key parts of Blizzard’s strategy in the years to come. We reported extensively on Diablo 4, code-named Fenris, late last year, and what we’ve heard about Overwatch 2 (or whatever it winds up being called) is that it’ll have a large PVE element. (A couple of Blizzard people have compared it to Left 4 Dead.)" I mean it's not officially confirmed, because why would they do that before Blizzcon? But Blizzard employees talking about it is confirmation enough imo. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20156 Posts
Post 1 in this very thread? I did read that, but it just said that some dudes said that some other dudes said D4 and OW2 were in development. That's not the greatest standard of evidence and i wouldn't consider it a confirmation as of yet (: | ||
BronzeKnee
United States5207 Posts
| ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
| ||
GreasedUpDeafGuy
United States398 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
| ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8763 Posts
On September 15 2019 01:28 opisska wrote: Are people really invested in the SC universe? For me, the campaigns were fun, but I was never considering the whole lore to be really outstanding, so a game would not interest me just for the sake of being thematically related. Honestly not really, the universe is all right but the characters are quite boring and I will never forgive them to have turn Kerrigan into a flaming naked angel (with heels) rather than in the giant squid god she should have become in the context of the story. I would probably buy something Starcraft just cause, but I always prefered Warcraft if we stay in Blizz IP, that said I've never been a big Sci-fi guy. | ||
Inrau
35 Posts
On September 15 2019 01:28 opisska wrote: Are people really invested in the SC universe? For me, the campaigns were fun, but I was never considering the whole lore to be really outstanding, so a game would not interest me just for the sake of being thematically related. SC2's story was dialed down for mass broad appeal. I think overall the StarCraft universe is full of potential. If you have great writers you can make a solid story out of any franchise. And the rad thing about StarCraft is they can make PG - R rated content. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20706 Posts
On September 15 2019 01:28 opisska wrote: Are people really invested in the SC universe? For me, the campaigns were fun, but I was never considering the whole lore to be really outstanding, so a game would not interest me just for the sake of being thematically related. I sort of was, Brood War anyway. SC2 not so much, the universe is like a Marvel film, although as a single player RTS campaign I think it plays great. I mean my attachment to the franchise is competitive, mechanically demanding RTS action with all that Blizzard polish and character, but that’s about it really. Ghost, way back when I was interested in because it actually looked a pretty decent game from what I saw, but I’m not itching to have the universe expanded to other games or whatever. | ||
MinixTheNerd
200 Posts
I know its a bummer for people who are invested in the Starcraft universe, but honestly after SC2 the characters just became a joke, and any new character that was introduced felt like a cartoon character. | ||
AlexZhang1012
62 Posts
| ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
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. | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
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. | ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 Posts
On September 14 2019 00:02 Excludos wrote: Well they're not so much theories as it's confirmed that they're working it. The poster just tells us we're going to hear about it at this Blizzcon Even if they are working on it, that is no guarantee for a big announcement for a game that actually releases in 2020 They have been working on those for a while now. To the SC universe: I wouldn't mind if they were doing something in the same universe but like a "a hundred years later" kinda thing. Like Jaden Raynor, grand grand grandson of Jimmy, finds a xel naga artifact in the middle of nowhere... | ||
GreasedUpDeafGuy
United States398 Posts
On September 15 2019 04:42 Inrau wrote: SC2's story was dialed down for mass broad appeal. I think overall the StarCraft universe is full of potential. If you have great writers you can make a solid story out of any franchise. And the rad thing about StarCraft is they can make PG - R rated content. '"dialed down" is a REAL big understatement. They gutted it | ||
Excludos
Norway7685 Posts
On September 16 2019 17:32 Harris1st wrote: Even if they are working on it, that is no guarantee for a big announcement for a game that actually releases in 2020 They have been working on those for a while now. I don't get what you mean. If the game releases in 2020, we're 100% going to hear about it now. They wouldn't announce the release of a Blizzard game outside of their own convention. I guess if it's q4 2020 we could hear about it next year instead, but I feel like they probably want to let the hype build for a while first, so even then it makes more sense to announce it now. That said we have no idea if they are going to release a new game next year at all. But it's very likely they'll want to repair the disaster that was last year's Blizzcon, so a new major title announcement is likely. | ||
Harris1st
Germany6128 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 Ireland20706 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
Norway7685 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
Norway7685 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
8716 Posts
| ||
Starecat
932 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 Ireland20706 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
Norway7685 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
Norway7685 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
Germany6128 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
Norway7685 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
Norway7685 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 Ireland20706 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
Germany6128 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
Norway7685 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 States12179 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 Ireland20706 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. | ||
| ||