next »

[Arne]

Charles Dickens? No, this thread is now about rape.

[moi]

Wow how things have esclated!
When I wrote "I'm glad it's not another shitty MMO" the term shitty didn't refer specifically to WOW or to Blizzard,  it was refering to the MMO genus in general, and I fully understand that it's just my personal opinion.
I have nothing against Blizzard, even if I don't like their games too much.
There.

[PoV]

How did a thread about a new game turn into Charles Dickens-bashing?  This is the silliest internet argument I have ever read!

We're trying to set a new standard of absurdity.

But then again, I'm a person that rolls eyes when someone states that he/she HATES Micro$oft Wink.

Exactly.  They haven't been the quickest to get where they are today, but Microsoft does a lot of good for the industry.  Development tools are now all free.  They're open about most of their projects, with employee blogs and internal Video/Media coverage.  Even on their console alone, there are a lot of community things (gamer and developer) that they were first to do, and in some cases, are still the only that does.

Let's step back for a second, and remove any bias. We have a sequel coming out to a genre that typically either thrives or fails quickly.

Right, the RTS is a flawed genre.  Subgenre actually, of strategy games.  That's a completely separate issue than Blizzard being bad in any way.  And that's my point.  Hating Blizzard for a sub point that is completely unrelated to them is of no value to you.  The real issue at hand is completely lost in absurdity.

Some people seem to hate Steam, which is absurd because it's merely a passive client like any web browser or internet app (iTunes).  Unlike Wild Tangent DRM (Fate), which is a variety of spyware.  There is a reason to dislike a company, because they are actually doing something negative to you that they don't have to.

... it was refering to the MMO genus in general, and I fully understand that it's just my personal opinion.

Right, but doing so does you no good.  Disliking something is great, but understand what parts you don't like.  If your dislike for MMO's is the integrated social community, but you love RPG's, then honestly, are you making a lot of sense to yourself?


Nice rape clock Arne. :D

[Xion]

Hmmm...Wow, you guys are gettin' all into it.

I just don't like Blizzard because I don't like their games. Any of them. Personally, I think they all suck. But then, I hate beans, too, which are a staple food in many-a country. I don't hate the country though. Just what they eat.

Hmm...but if hating the beans is hating the games, and I don't hate the bean-growers, who are the game developers, why do I hate Blizzard and not just the games they make...?

Hmmm...

Hmmm...

Hmmm...

Ah! To be deep, it is because Blizzard is the games, whereas the farmers are not beans.


What?

[PoV]

To be honest, I just don't want to see yet another forum degenerate in to haters versus fanboys.  If I honestly enjoyed discussing degenerate topics with people, I'd regular the IGN or GameDev forums instead.  This forum and community came together at a moment of tension on the IG forums, bringing together a handful of biz interested folk, idealist indie developers, artists, freeware community people, and TIGSource readership.  The attitude here is fun, and the community broad.  That has the potential to be a very powerful thing.

I don't know what some of your goals are, but I make games for a living.  If you're here, there's a good chance you have some sort of professional or academic interest in game making, or at the very least gaming as a subject.  Cars without wheels, or math without negatives don't give you very meaningful subjects.  Not acknowledging Blizzard role in shaping gaming, the good and the bad, isn't a great way to discuss the subject.  Blizzard of course, being just one such example.

How many other companies games are a national sport, with a dedicated television channel?

[Bezzy]

If Blizzard are indeed making money hand over fist, then they have money to risk on creating something new.

But by now, Blizzard is run by businessmen, and most of the original creatives have moved on. Actually, arguably, all the failures they've had (Ghost, Warcraft adventures) do point at them taking risks to create new things. If they need to re-release a game with polished graphics and incremental gameplay improvements... back off a little. They need that game to make money so that they can throw money at more risky propositions.

Not every game they make can be a new IP. They need their bread and butter.

[Alec]

I think Hard Time raped me a bit. It felt so wrong.

but SO right

[Alex May]

lol @ RAPE TIME picture

[PoV]

If Blizzard are indeed making money hand over fist, then they have money to risk on creating something new.

Indeed.  But that's common with every established company.  I left DICE when it became clear that we'd become EA's "Battlefield" company.  Both DICE and Blizzard have great portfolio's of titles, but you're not going to see those any time soon because of their killer franchises.

Blizzard is also owned by Vivendi, so they're the ones cashing in and exploring other opportunities.  Vivendi also owns Sierra, to give more context of what sort of game catalog they control (as most people don't know who Vivendi is).  That WOW spill over cash is making it's way to funding games they're publishing, licensed titles being developed at any of their internal studios (Radical, Massive, High Moon, Swordfish), and in to low cost Live Arcade developments.  Get in while you still can people.

[Dan MacDonald]

Blizzard continuously sets the bar for production values with every game they release. Not necessarily technology, but definitely production values. I was all pumped about the game I'm working on and then I go watch blizzards videos and I feel so small and punny. All my stuff looks like crap comparatively. Love em' or hate em' they've got talent.

[xix]

People being delusional to the state of the game industry is really the problem. There is no unifying artistic intent within Blizzard. Blizzard just makes Blizzard games to make money for Blizzard employees. People that don't like that leave and make new games for other employees. Please see Flagship Studios and Hellgate: London. The same thing happens with other companies like Capcom and Clover, SEGA and Camelot, etc. Some of the companies maintain good relationships, some of the companies don't. If you really care about artistic intent and individualism in games, buy games with high profile developers.

Also, really, who the fuck cares if Starcraft 2 is a new game? Kids all gung-ho for risk taking ventures better start looking at games with titles without numbers. Jesus Christ, it's like asking for a Led Zeppelin that isn't rock.

[FARTRON]

If you really care about artistic intent and individualism in games, buy games with high profile developers.

Sid Meiers presents an American McGee production of Blizzard's The Return of the Curse of the Starcraft: Ghost

[Guert]

Fartron;: :D

[xix]

If you really care about artistic intent and individualism in games, buy games with high profile developers.

Sid Meiers presents an American McGee production of Blizzard's The Return of the Curse of the Starcraft: Ghost

Pikmin, Rez, Spore, Killer7, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus... I could go on.

Also: Alice was a fucking awesome game.

[Shinji16]

Alice was a fucking awesome game.

I agree!

Also, having done more reading on SC2, and reading blog reactions, and the videos a few more times, I am hopeful for SC2.

I still hate Blizzard though.

Edit: Fixing a misspelling.

[Inane]

God, Shinji, you hold grudges almost as well as me.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

About the discussion here -- what hasn't been noted is that what a lot of people WANT is SC with updated graphics and new units. People want that, Blizzard is making people happy by making this game. It's not a risky game, it's not an experimental game, it's just them making a game that people (including me) really want. I don't see why we should hold it against them if they make games that people want.

It's true that they used to be more innovative (remember The Lost Vikings?) but their focus is now on making three games (Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo) over and over, that's what they've chosen to do, and they do it well.

Besides, some aspects of SC2 do look pretty innovative (what other RTS has a super-strong unit that you can only have one of at a time?). And the game's not out yet, maybe it has a lot of innovation we just haven't seen yet.

[FARTRON]

Besides, some aspects of SC2 do look pretty innovative (what other RTS has a super-strong unit that you can only have one of at a time?). And the game's not out yet, maybe it has a lot of innovation we just haven't seen yet.

Isn't that the case with Supreme Commander?  I haven't played it yet, but my impression was that there are rare giant units.  Not to mention the Commander himself that I assume must be a unit, as it was in TA.

[ravuya]

Yeah, SupCom has a variety of units you can only have one of at a time, including the Commander.

[Shinji16]

God, Shinji, you hold grudges almost as well as me.

Aw... quit it - you're making me blush.

About the discussion here -- what hasn't been noted is that what a lot of people WANT is SC with updated graphics and new units. People want that, Blizzard is making people happy by making this game. It's not a risky game, it's not an experimental game, it's just them making a game that people (including me) really want. I don't see why we should hold it against them if they make games that people want.

That's one thing that has me a bit riled up. I didn't say it directly, but one thing that angers me about Blizzard is that they're mainly more concerned about making money.

[quote rinkuhero]It's true that they used to be more innovative (remember The Lost Vikings?) but their focus is now on making three games (Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo) over and over, that's what they've chosen to do, and they do it well.[/quote]

...and that's my beef with them exactly. Granted they do a job, but I still think it's poor to have that much resource (talent, money, fan support) and not use to try and make some different things. There's nothing wrong with having a succesful series and making games just for players of the series, but there is something wrong if you also have the capability to do something different, and refuse to do it.