Blizzard is rather disappointing these days in terms of innovation

[Spurmwhale]

People always seem confused by what innovation actually means. The rune system in Diablo is an innovation, it is a new way of doing something. It has not necessarily brought anything revolutionary to the game but it is new. Polishing the game and adding these features is innovating. Innovation does not mean invention. Taking a coke can and adding the foil/plastic widget from an orange juice carton in place of the aluminium widget would be an example of innovating without inventing anything. What Blizzard lacks right now would be called revolutionary innovation, since all they are doing at this time is incremental innovation, at least as far as we are concerned. Titan is being made, they can't just blink these things into existence so I would even challenge anyone saying they lack the former. Also - moving in a direction you don't like does not mean lack of innovation either.

no there is a stark difference between what they put out with SC2 and D3, than most of their previous games, especially early on. Someone in the other innovation thread made a great post breaking down how their earlier games were very different even in sequels up until SC2 and D3. IMO they cater to their B.net rabid fanbase to a fault who only want the same game updated to todays graphics, where innovation is thrown out the window. I just don't get how it takes 7-8~ years to create these remakes of the same game that are almost identical....

[Nos]

They're trying to add new things to MoP, like the new talent system and such, to get away from the system that every single rpg video game ever, and people started loosing their shit. That was just trying to change the flavor of a talent system.

People began raging because they tried to make D3 more multiplayer-ish.

Blizzard has to tread a fine line. I think polishing is probably the smartest thing they can do. Make what's good better, not different, so that people don't begin mailing them bombs.

[Moinaldo]

What exactly did you expect out of Diablo 3? The game certainly isn't a reskinned D2, but the core mechanics are more or less the same. But, if Blizzard were to change those, then it wouldn't really be Diablo, would it? I'm perfectly happy with it. It's a great game. I can't speak for Starcraft 2, however, as I do not play it. But, it sounds like it's just you.

^This. That's why the games are "sequels", they need to keep the core of the past games.

As someone else said, It's more disappointing the other companies not innovating or if "Titan" ended up not be innovative at all.

[Repefe]

It feels like they are not innovative, because all they do are sequels.

[Ragedaug]

altho its hard to blame them since fans of their core games seem to want the same game updated to todays standards, and that seems to be what we more or less got between Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. I'm just not sure if they're over-catering to their rabid online ladder fanbase more than gamers as a whole by repeating the same successful formula to the point the games are almost identical to their predecessors.

Obviously they have Titan on the horizon which will likely be something new but i can't help but be disappointed with their remakes of older games. I'm surprised they spent 7 years doing D3, and however many doing Starcraft2, where they more or less felt like graphical updated versions of their original releases.

For future reference...

If you ever see a game get published that has the same name as a game that came out before it, and the newly published game has a "2" or say "3" after the name which, as noted, happens to have the same name as a game published before it...then understand the game will be very similar to the previous, same named, game.

In a similar fashion, when you see titles like "Warcraft" and "Starcraft" where Blizzard used a new name that was a play off the older name, you realize going in that there will be a lot of similarities to the previous title. In the same, but opposite, manner - you see titles like "Warcraft" and then later "Diablo" which Blizzard created with different names do not resemble one another hardly at all.

Sequels are built to primary appeal to the pre-existing audience. That's the point of them. Obviously they want new players as well, but that's not the primary push to sequels. In fact if they created a sequel that was nothing like it's predecessor, it would fail right out of the gate. The pre-existing customers wouldn't get the product they imagined, and players who didn't care for the previous game wouldn't buy the sequel in the first place because they would figure it was like the older game...which they already knew they didn't want to play.

I'm sorry to have to patronize you, this just seems like an overly simple concept and to be honest with you, I don't understand how you wouldn't get this. (unless you are trolling, then I completely understand the point to this thread)

[Spurmwhale]

For future reference...

If you ever see a game get published that has the same name as a game that came out before it, and the newly published game has a "2" or say "3" after the name which, as noted, happens to have the same name as a game published before it...then understand the game will be very similar to the previous, same named, game.

In a similar fashion, when you see titles like "Warcraft" and "Starcraft" where Blizzard used a new name that was a play off the older name, you realize going in that there will be a lot of similarities to the previous title. In the same, but opposite, manner - you see titles like "Warcraft" and then later "Diablo" which Blizzard created with different names do not resemble one another hardly at all.

Sequels are built to primary appeal to the pre-existing audience. That's the point of them. Obviously they want new players as well, but that's not the primary push to sequels. In fact if they created a sequel that was nothing like it's predecessor, it would fail right out of the gate. The pre-existing customers wouldn't get the product they imagined, and players who didn't care for the previous game wouldn't buy the sequel in the first place because they would figure it was like the older game...which they already knew they didn't want to play.

I'm sorry to have to patronize you, this just seems like an overly simple concept and to be honest with you, I don't understand how you wouldn't get this. (unless you are trolling, then I completely understand the point to this thread)

read this, and i honestly don't see how some of you think its all the same if you've been playing their games since SC1, War1, D1....

Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
Ah, Blizzad innovation. Discussion I've always loved. I really feel like that they've dropped the ball of this game long ago as a company that shows the way (as they used to) to a company that takes from others and improves over it.

Now don't take me wrong, the very basic Blizzard doctrine has always been, take from something and improve upon it. But in the past improving upon something in Blizzard's terms meant expanding to a territory that wasn't there yet, while nowdays it's more about just making that what exists "better". Better being in ""'s because it is relative to one's viewpoint. To bring examples

Warcraft I, the first RTS game to bring a robust unit based skill system that could change the tide of battle if used right for the populace (And ability to select more than 1 unit at the time if I remember right, Dune lacked this feature)

Warcraft 2, the first RTS that let you drag over the units with mouse to select multiple units at once, also including improvements to their previous system of unit abilities and controllability of them

Diablo, originally intended as roguelike turn based item hunting game but at later stages developed into a an action hack'n'slash that would create entire genre of new games that to the date still spreads further

Starcraft/Brood Wars, the first RTS to really introduce heavily tied in narrative to a RTS games with well developed world shared along 3 faction that went through a progressive story one by one

Warcraft 3, the final stage of Warcraft "evolution" of unit abilities with controllable heroes being able to level up and improve skills on the way (Did you know Warcraft 3 was originally planned to be an RPG?)

World of Warcraft, the first MMO to introduce huge open world MMO without loading screen (Yah yah, continental differences), downplayed by EQ devs saying it was impossible for hardware demands, yet pulling it off. Also the pioneers of the modern instancing system we have in every MMO. It was really in it's child's steps at the time WoW was released. Some of the MMO's of the time tried to copy it while WoW was in beta due to their immense succees.

And now?

Starcraft 2 that plays exactly like SC, but with a bit more variation to the single player missions and new units
WoW expansions, adding new content but hardly anything new and innovative in the terms of gaming scene that wouldn't been done before, just iterating
Diablo 3, the same hack'n'slash as before with remade skill trees that has yet to show that they can sustain the game for as long as Diablo 2's replayability through leveling for different specs did.

From my point of view, it looks really grim and for last 8 or so years, Blizzard has done nothing more but trying to play it sure to keep sales, instead of pushing things forward that really gave them the reputation they have and what us who grew with Blizzard games have known to learn to expect from them. Sad times from my PoV.

(And for personal opinion remark, can't even start to comprehend how low their storytelling capabilities has gone with all these retcons, saturday morning cartoon enemies and Indiana Jones spoofs)

[Ragedaug]

It feels like they are not innovative, because all they do are sequels.

ok, let's see...

RPM Racing
Battle Chess*(Windows and Commodore 64 ports)
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I*
Castles
MicroLeague Baseball
Lexi-Cross
Dvorak on Typing
The Lost Vikings
Rock n' Roll Racing
Blackthorne
The Death and Return of Superman
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Justice League Task Force
Diablo
StarCraft
Titan


hmm, yeah, just sequels

---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 02:38 PM ----------

read this, and i honestly don't see how some of you think its all the same if you've been playing their games since SC1, War1, D1....

Read, what? That's exactly what I just said, which is what you appear to not understand, while somehow not understanding how people can think that the sequels are the same as their predecessors, when you are the one who started this whole thread with the very notion which you now can't understand people having...

Schizophrenic much?

[DeadmanWalking]

I think its pretty damn innovating that I can change my skills on the fly in diablo III, In II you are stuck with what you choose and back then it wasn't as easy to use the internet to find high end player guides. I had to give up my necromancer in act III when everything and its mother one shot my pets and crushed me. I put all my points into raising skeletons and increasing their stats, how was I supposed to know they would suck? So I had to start over, that was not good game design. Being able to try frogs on my witch doctor and decide to switch back to bouncing exploding skulls is far better.

As far as innovation goes and sequels, if D3 wasn't very much like D2 the guys who enjoyed 2 would be spitting fire on the forums instead of the guys who had not tried 2 and didnt realise what the game was about. Complaining about this is like complaining that in Assassins Creed 2 you still have to assassinate people, or why is Mario still trying to save the princess after 30 years. Why do I have to drive a go-cart in Mario-cart 7? Why in Final Fantasy 14-2 do I still wish it was Final Fantasy 7?

When a new game comes to market innovation means, "I never played anything like it and it works, I loved it and I want sequels!" and when the sequel comes out innovation means, "I got a better version of the original, the graphics where better, the game play systems were cleaned up, the story was expanded and there were more things to do in the game than the original." Diablo III -> Check, Check, Check, Check, Check. 'Nuff said.

[Spurmwhale]

ok, let's see...

RPM Racing
Battle Chess*(Windows and Commodore 64 ports)
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I*
Castles
MicroLeague Baseball
Lexi-Cross
Dvorak on Typing
The Lost Vikings
Rock n' Roll Racing
Blackthorne
The Death and Return of Superman
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Justice League Task Force
Diablo
StarCraft
Titan


hmm, yeah, just sequels

---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 02:38 PM ----------



Read, what? That's exactly what I just said, which is what you appear to not understand, while somehow not understanding how people can think that the sequels are the same as their predecessors, when you are the one who started this whole thread with the very notion which you now can't understand people having...

Schizophrenic much?

lol is there something wrong with you? no, you didn't say that, you said they were all supposed to be the same because they're sequels. He described how those sequels have been very different up until D3, SC2 mainly.....l2read or stop being such a fanboy ignoring the legit points people are making. In fact you really haven't made any points than obfuscating it all as supposed to be the same...

and lol @ calling me schizophrenic, wtf did that come from? man are you defensive...

[DeadmanWalking]

I will point your attention to X-com sequels.
X-com 1 was innovative turn based strategy.
X-com 2 tried to copy the original and while it lacked in phsyics (throwing grenades under water?) it upgraded the dangers of enemies, gave you alien base missions but didn't do much to upgrade graphics, story was the less intrigueing (attacking from ocean rather than mars) but ultimately it held up.
X-com 3 tried to get 'innovative' where the game was based in the future with flying cars and aliens attacked from a paralell dimension. The whole system was re-worked along with the graphics and the game stank and sank like a lead crap. The only thing it had in common with x-com 1 was the name X-com. I couldn't play the game for more than an hour it was so horrible.

So 'changing things up and being innovative' in sequels isnt always a good thing, if it's not broken then don't fix it.

[Deleted]

I think its fair to use a statement like this towards blizzards sequels simply because of how long their development cycle is. with diablo being in development 4 or 5 years before the announcement i expected more.

Im a huge critic of COD, fifa, Assassins and these annual sequels we get because they barely change anything except a little reskin, and people are hugely critical of them, yet in here i see alot of people are not critical of blizzard for doing the same thing with their sequels, blizzard have years to try to innovate and add things to their franchises, but with SC2 and D3 they havent done too much. At least the annual sequels have the excuse of a short time frame so they dont change a whole lot.

As much as im enjoying D3 i do wonder where the 7 years of development time went into this, it seems a little rushed especially with regards to the last 2 Acts, The story as a whole and the characters. I do love the smootheness and polish of it all, but its just not that different to any other dungeon crawler out there, and with the dev time i was expect a very special game, all i got was a good one, which is nothing to complain about, just a little disapointing.

[ElAmigo]

This thread has a disgusting amount of pedantry in it...

[Ragedaug]

lol is there something wrong with you? no, you didn't say that, you said they were all supposed to be the same because they're sequels. He described how those sequels have been very different up until D3, SC2 mainly.....l2read or stop being such a fanboy ignoring the legit points people are making. In fact you really haven't made any points than obfuscating it all as supposed to be the same...

Warcraft 2, the first RTS that let you drag over the units with mouse to select multiple units at once, also including improvements to their previous system of unit abilities and controllability of them

You call this "very different", I call it almost exactly the same with improvements to abilities and controllability. We apparently used the same quote to back up to very different points. I guess it's all going to come down to personal perspective. I see many similarities in all the sequels...which is why I continue to play them, since I really enjoyed the first iteration. The term fanboy seems to fit as I have loved Blizzard games now since the first time I picked up Battle Chess..I think 1990, and really fell in love with their games in 1994 with Humans vs. Orc - - though I do understand you are using the term pejoratively, suggesting it clouds my ability to discern. Who knows...maybe you are right. By definition if that is the case, I wouldn't know I'm doing it. And being accused of it wouldn't convince me otherwise.

So all I honestly say, is that I believe I really enjoy most of their games and I believe I understand why their games are (or seem) similar to their namesakes, and I believe I agree and prefer it to be that way.

and lol @ calling me schizophrenic, wtf did that come from? man are you defensive...

Not defensive, I was honestly having trouble following you, though with this post, I think I have a better idea....maybe. Your original post says how Blizz lacks innovation and the games are the same, then you follow that up with saying you don't see how the rest of us can see how they are all the same, after you started the thread saying they are the same.

So I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I honestly don't know which side of this you are coming from.

---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 04:28 PM ----------

This thread has a disgusting amount of pedantry in it...

I will acquiesce to that.

[Glorious Leader]

I think its fair to use a statement like this towards blizzards sequels simply because of how long their development cycle is. with diablo being in development 4 or 5 years before the announcement i expected more.

Im a huge critic of COD, fifa, Assassins and these annual sequels we get because they barely change anything except a little reskin, and people are hugely critical of them, yet in here i see alot of people are not critical of blizzard for doing the same thing with their sequels, blizzard have years to try to innovate and add things to their franchises, but with SC2 and D3 they havent done too much. At least the annual sequels have the excuse of a short time frame so they dont change a whole lot.

As much as im enjoying D3 i do wonder where the 7 years of development time went into this, it seems a little rushed especially with regards to the last 2 Acts, The story as a whole and the characters. I do love the smootheness and polish of it all, but its just not that different to any other dungeon crawler out there, and with the dev time i was expect a very special game, all i got was a good one, which is nothing to complain about, just a little disapointing.

I agree with this more or less but I feel sc2 added alot more coming out of sc1. Especially in terms of it's single player campaign which felt like a warp jump in space compared to the first one. D3 however REALLY REALLY lacks growth and innovation imo and is a let down in that regard.

[Spurmwhale]

I agree with this more or less but I feel sc2 added alot more coming out of sc1. Especially in terms of it's single player campaign which felt like a warp jump in space compared to the first one. D3 however REALLY REALLY lacks growth and innovation imo and is a let down in that regard.

i thought the bar room was a bit overrated. i didn't feel there were enough options there in terms of unit choices, and a lot of it was more fluff than really applicable to the gameplay. it was well done and i liked the space cowboy vibe of it, but other than that i thought it was mostly fluff.

[Repefe]

ok, let's see...

RPM Racing
Battle Chess*(Windows and Commodore 64 ports)
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I*
Castles
MicroLeague Baseball
Lexi-Cross
Dvorak on Typing
The Lost Vikings
Rock n' Roll Racing
Blackthorne
The Death and Return of Superman
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Justice League Task Force
Diablo
StarCraft
Titan

Most of what you listed are games more than 15 years old. If you look what they released in past 10 years WoW is the one game that was not a sequel. Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo all sequels. It's a fact that Blizz polishes sequels for games they came up with a generation ago and they do it well enough to stay ahead of their competition.

And it's a fact that players very much prefere same old polished than new stuff that has ways to go. DA2 is a shining example of how developers innovativeness can backfire. I hate that game for reasons other than just the rushed developement.

---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 05:59 PM ----------

I agree with this more or less but I feel sc2 added alot more coming out of sc1. Especially in terms of it's single player campaign which felt like a warp jump in space compared to the first one. D3 however REALLY REALLY lacks growth and innovation imo and is a let down in that regard.

D3 sadly lacks a bit of polish on top of not being much more than a sequel to D2 ... the ending is as if Blizz was trying to beat BWs ME3 ending in quality.

[Glorious Leader]

Most of what you listed are games more than 15 years old. If you look what they released in past 10 years WoW is the one game that was not a sequel. Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo all sequels. It's a fact that Blizz polishes sequels for games they came up with a generation ago and they do it well enough to stay ahead of their competition.

And it's a fact that players very much prefere same old polished than new stuff that has ways to go. DA2 is a shining example of how developers innovativeness can backfire. I hate that game for reasons other than just the rushed developement.

Sometimes it misfires but that's okay you learn from that. Or at least we hope you do. That situation is FAR preferable to the situation we are now in today where all you get is the same crap re skinned and tweaked. That's not really good for gaming (outside of sales). The thing is everybody always brings ups da2 but NEVER BOTHERS to look at innovative games that actually worked and did really well. Hell you wan't innovative and successful? The Nintendo Wii was an entire console based around that and it had some of the most innovative game play in ages. But yes everyone has to beat up on da2 for being innovative and the developers trying something different..

[Repefe]

Sometimes it misfires but that's okay you learn from that. Or at least we hope you do. That situation is FAR preferable to the situation we are now in today where all you get is the same crap re skinned and tweaked. That's not really good for gaming (outside of sales). The thing is everybody always brings ups da2 but NEVER BOTHERS to look at innovative games that actually worked and did really well. Hell you wan't innovative and successful? The Nintendo Wii was an entire console based around that and it had some of the most innovative game play in ages. But yes everyone has to beat up on da2 for being innovative and the developers trying something different..

For this to change ppl would have to stop buying the reskinned stuff.

[Verdugo]

I like when Atrahasis talks about inovation, it is rather ironic that same person likes Torchlight.

[Frozen Death Knight]

in the past. now they somehow manage to both take ages to put stuff out and make it feel rushed and untested. time was Bliz was known for quality and polish, sadly those days are long gone and now its bug and long waits.

As a smaller company they were really innovative and produced some really great games. but they grew big and because bogged down in stockholder returns and so one and lost their edge.

Compare them to Trion or Anet, or even CCP. companies much more flexible and able to innovate because they are not as big as Bliz. Bliz has too much inertia, once they set course its very hard for them to change direction, and thats not good.

Maybe you felt it was innovative back then because you had barely experienced those type of games? A good analogy would be the iPhone, for example. The technology for making such phones have existed for some time, but it was not until Apple put together every piece that set the standards for the market.

This also applies to Diablo 1 and 2. The ideas behind them were not new, but Blizzard still managed to set the standard of future games by making two games that worked very well at what they were designed for.

I personally think the reason you may have problems with Blizzard now is because they do not amaze you as much as they did when you first started playing their games. It's too familiar ground and so many games have come out since Diablo 1 and 2 that you have grown past the games they have been making since the very beginning.

Diablo 3, whether you like it or not, is polished and well made for the audience it wishes to cater to. While not completely perfect, it does its job to make a lot of people like it, and while not as groundbreaking as it predecessors, Blizzard's games have been known to set new standards in the gaming world. You may not like those standards, but the influence will be there in the coming future.