Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    953
    This, espcially on the real consoles (not handheld)

  2. #82
    I doubt anyone is going to argue that the vast majority of companies exist to make money. Yet it seems to be something thrown around as some sort of misguided justification. The primary role of a company is to provide a service to the best of their ability, arguably one that appeals to their target audience. Some may disagree, but I feel as if the vast majority of problems with the gaming industry at the moment boil down to the habit of companies trying to appeal to as many potential customers as possible, rather than loyal fans of a particular franchise.

    This ties in with why many sequels aren't as well received as their predecessors - especially if a lot of things change in order to appeal to a broader market.

  3. #83
    Over 9000! Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Venziir View Post
    How is this different from any big company? Honestly, you could replace the word Blizzard with Bioware, EA, Apple or Microsoft. People. Wants. Money.
    Notice I don't buy Apple products either and that's the best example because I feel Blizzard is going down that route. MOST of the time I can deal with the other companies because they still let me use their products offline. This is the first example that I can think of where I literally cannot play the game in any fashion if I have don't have access to the internet and the game in question is not an MMO. This was a design decision on their part that is the result of many facets and their answer about focusing on the battle.net experience is only half the story. It's a slippery slope and with Blizzard taking this step I suspect we'll now see many many more companies doing the same thing. It's taking what was already an entirely restrictive atmosphere and putting that into hand cuffs. Oh brave new world that has such people in it...
    Last edited by Glorious Leader; 2012-05-24 at 06:35 PM.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWerebison View Post
    My question is WHY people cry so much about the lack of innovation of a SEQUEL.
    Sequel doesn't have to just mean "Takes place after the prior event" it can mean much more than that. A challenging new gimmick, a new way to play, something that stands it apart from it's predecessor. Essentially, Diablo 3 is a story that takes place after the first one, that's about it. Now I'm not exactly the top tier in terms of computer workings, but there are plenty of games that pump out sequels yearly. Blizzard took 10+ years on Diablo, so you'd think they'd offer something different to justify that time frame. For me, there's no way that Diablo 3 does that, let alone warrants a $60 price point for the same old same old with a new story.

    Blizzard has their name to stand behind, so that pads the mediocre work they have done recently. They are established as a quality company that puts out products, "When they're ready." Now that definitely hasn't been the truth lately, but time will tell how that effects them.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    If you're only talking about extremes, what you said doesn't refute my arguments, and all you have to do is to read my old post to understand where you're wrong. You're talking about extremes, but I'm not.

    When I say that the game doesn't teach you how to play, I'm not saying that the game should be tolerant to people with 10 IQ. I'm talking about ordinary people, that starting playing games last week. Ok, you learned how to play D3 by dying and trying new things... but are you new to dungeon crawlers? Are you new to videogames? Are you new to computers? You're assuming that the "average gamer" is someone like you, but if you look outside your friend circle, you'll see that you're far above the average.

    There are people that have no idea of why they are dying to Skeleton King, and they are not morons, they are people not used to play games. The current model that we have now is that you should google "OP Monk Build D3" or access "D3 Wiki", or to come here and open a thread asking for help. It's Blizzard's job to teach how to play Blizzard's game, and no, killing a new player over and over is not "teaching".

    "The learning curve was good for me" is not how you determine if a game was well designed or not. "D3 is fun" and "D3 is well designed" are completely different things.

    I hope I made myself clear rather than sounds like a troll this time.
    Yes, you did, and I thank you for it. :P

    And, believe me, I do see your point.

    I'm not sure how else the game can teach you how to play the game, though. I mean, if people are dying because they can't avoid the SK's well-telegraphed 3-hit combo, or they consistently die due to standing in a Molten enemy's supernova of death...I guess I can't think of any simpler way to teach people.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-24 at 10:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Thetruth1400 View Post
    Sequel doesn't have to just mean "Takes place after the prior event" it can mean much more than that. A challenging new gimmick, a new way to play, something that stands it apart from it's predecessor. Essentially, Diablo 3 is a story that takes place after the first one, that's about it. Now I'm not exactly the top tier in terms of computer workings, but there are plenty of games that pump out sequels yearly. Blizzard took 10+ years on Diablo, so you'd think they'd offer something different to justify that time frame. For me, there's no way that Diablo 3 does that, let alone warrants a $60 price point for the same old same old with a new story.

    Blizzard has their name to stand behind, so that pads the mediocre work they have done recently. They are established as a quality company that puts out products, "When they're ready." Now that definitely hasn't been the truth lately, but time will tell how that effects them.
    I...I guess. I dunno. I was really happy with the game. It offered everything I was expecting, which was basically just a solid click'n'slash game. Maybe I just set my standards too low, and thus am always happy with what I get. :P

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-24 at 10:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    See, the problem OP is you're not asking for examples of "innovation" - you're looking for "a 100% original ground-up video game". This is why you don't see the Mario sequels as "innovative", CLEARLY the Mario games are innovative - you're looking for outright "original brand-new game".

    For your example... an innovative game is Dragon's Dogma. A game where you have an AI companion that fights with you... but when you log out you can "rent" him out to other players to join your group. That character will not only develop his skills, but also obtain new armor/ect through the battles... and players who "rent" him can actually equip him out any way they fit before sending him back to you.

    The idea of having a character that's an AI controlled companion you equip stuff in a standard action RPG isn't original... the idea of having that companion be shared with others IS innovative...

    Same thing with Portal. Portal is an FPS, but it takes the idea and builds in an interesting physics toy... THAT'S innovative!

    Innovative does NOT mean original. That's not what people mean by they wanted D3 to be more "innovative". What they meant by D3 being more innovative is to have something that EXPANDS the gameplay dramatically, particularly a game engine that's 12 years old. Collectibles in-game where you can trade them for special items, trophies you could collect and place in a small cottage of your own, weapons that have special procs that do massive effects (Fire bomb AoE, random heals, chain lightning, ect), a town where you and all other players could gather and meet, an overworld with extra stuff to do on it, Character customization for your looks, ect...

    You can still have ALL of those things, hell even a hub-city where everybody can meet in, and STILL call it Diablo.

    A game I like to showcase is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I find it absolutely fascinating that C:SotN is regarded as the best of the series by many, and yet that game was the one that slaughtered the MOST sacred iconic cows of the series. It was the game that completely removed standard on-rails straight-plodding level design, removed a Belmont from being the primary character, and even replaced the MOST ICONIC GAMEPLAY ELEMENT of the series... the Whip. Hell, none of the original music came back as remixes (a staple trademark of the series). It also introduced serious RPG leveling elements, item drops, familiars, metroid-style secret items hidden throughout the map, ect... That series has completely changed FOREVER when C:SotN Came out. Ironically very LITTLE of it was innovative, but it was innovative for THAT SERIES and helped re-define the gameplay experience for the series forever.

    As a friend of mine said... "Diablo III doesn't feel like a game... it feels like a content patch to Diablo II." and I have to agree with him. His problem isn't that he wanted a radical new game... he wanted Diablo gameplay that EXPANDS to meet today's game standards.

    Again, "innovative" doesn't mean "original".
    No, no, no, I said I thought the Mario games WERE innovative, just not SEQUELS. That's what I'm talking about, a game that follows the story of a previous game. Believe me, I find Nintendo INCREDIBLY innovative. In every regard. Almost to a fault, considering some of their ideas people just aren't ready for. :P
    Once you go troll, you never reroll. -heard on cynicalbrit.com. Epic.

  6. #86
    Every new expansion brings new crazy stuff in pvp like smoke bomb which is a mechanic no class had till cata. You can use it to avoid getting shattered while deep frozen and casting on the move was something new as well wow does innovate. Mop will be even crazier.
    You're right except for 2 things.

    1. My name is spelt "God" not "Loucious-sama".
    2. I'm not a man, because man is inherently flawed. I am in fact a being so far beyond your comprehension that archaic constraints like flesh, blood, time and consequently, gender, have no meaning to me.

  7. #87
    I think you're taking internet critics too seriously. Most of them confuse innovation with intellectual property anyway.

    For example in Starcraft 2 they turned the traditional RTS formula of "sit in your base, build troops, attack" often completely around. There were so many mission objectives and map mechanics that required mobility over defense. When there's a wall of fire behind me, protoss bases ahead of me, and I need to constantly lift my base, push forward, land, replenish troops, etc. I call that innovation. There's a seed there for a whole new type of RTS where you don't have a single fixed base at all. But maybe I call it innovation because I'm a fanboy, and a hater will call it just a gimmick. It's all a matter of perspective.

  8. #88
    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)

    excellent summary, and this is EXACTLY how i see it. they've almost repeated the same exact game between Starcraft2 and Diablo3. hope the diehard fans that want the same game are worth it since i won't be buying Blizzard games at release anymore like i used to assuming i'm always going to get my moneys worth. and yes they were very innovative early on, in fact one of the most innovative game companies in the industry. now they're just milking it seems...

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 12:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Woebegone View Post
    I think you're taking internet critics too seriously. Most of them confuse innovation with intellectual property anyway.

    For example in Starcraft 2 they turned the traditional RTS formula of "sit in your base, build troops, attack" often completely around. There were so many mission objectives and map mechanics that required mobility over defense. When there's a wall of fire behind me, protoss bases ahead of me, and I need to constantly lift my base, push forward, land, replenish troops, etc. I call that innovation. There's a seed there for a whole new type of RTS where you don't have a single fixed base at all. But maybe I call it innovation because I'm a fanboy, and a hater will call it just a gimmick. It's all a matter of perspective.

    oh please...those are just campaign map varieties. i can't even believe you just tried to spin that as so innovative or even worth mentioning considering it really isn't any different than someone making different campaign maps which should be a given. there is no perspective on that point being innovative whatsoever unless you don't play any other RTS games that have some map variety and time limits :P
    Last edited by Spurmwhale; 2012-05-25 at 12:26 PM.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Spurmwhale View Post
    excellent summary, and this is EXACTLY how i see it. they've almost repeated the same exact game between Starcraft2 and Diablo3. hope the diehard fans that want the same game are worth it since i won't be buying Blizzard games at release anymore like i used to assuming i'm always going to get my moneys worth. and yes they were very innovative early on, in fact one of the most innovative game companies in the industry. now they're just milking it seems...

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-25 at 12:26 PM ----------




    oh please...those are just campaign map varieties. i can't even believe you just tried to spin that as so innovative or even worth mentioning considering it really isn't any different than someone making different campaign maps which should be a given. there is no perspective on that point being innovative whatsoever unless you don't play any other RTS games that have some map variety and time limits :P

    Wait, someone made a long list of minor improvements that Blizzard made to an existing genre, and that was innovation, yet when they make fairly similar improvements to their new games, that's not the case anymore? I mean hell, Warcraft 2 didn't even introduce the ability to 'lasso' your troops with the mouse, Command & Conquer beat them to the punch. I'm pretty sure hack n' slash action RPG wasn't anything new either unless you never played console games, but this is ancient history so my memory might fail me on this one. The ARPG article on Wikipedia is too long for me to read at work.

    And my point regarding Starcraft 2 wasn't map variety or timers, it was about maps that become a part of the gameplay, rising and lowering lava, night and day cycle where all zombie hell breaks loose during the night, or that literal wall of fire that burns everything in it's path. Then there was all that other stuff that's already been mentioned that happened between missions - tech trees, mercenearies, permanent unit upgrades, alternate missions, having some freedom of choice on the order you do your missions.. but I guess there's already some awesome RTS out there that has all this, and I've just been living under a rock (I have).

  10. #90
    I guess I can't think of any simpler way to teach people.
    But you're not paid to think about this. Blizzard, on the other hand...

  11. #91
    The Unstoppable Force Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jaina Proudmoore's side. Always and forever.
    Posts
    24,648
    Not really surprised at people bashing Blizzard though it's more tame then I expected. Maybe I'm seeing the right ones. I disagree with several things but minor things. I'm usually pretty calm and constructive when I disagree with things they do or what people do. I don't really(Not pointing fingers to anyone) *Foam at the mouth*.


    When people demand change for the sake of change that is not necessarily good. There has to be something wrong first to get change. If there is nothing wrong which can be subject to debate then leave it be.

  12. #92
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,112
    because innovation is the new buzzword the never satisfied whiners have latched onto. of course no one wants "innovation" in sequels.
    if they made an elder scrolls game into diablo people would be crying bloody murder.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon9870 View Post
    I wouldn't call it smart from a business sense, as they ARE losing consumers/customers over it; I have at least 5 friends who didn't buy it because their internet isn't good enough. It's smart from a "no cheating/hacking/Blizz having control" kind of sense, but definitely not a business/financial one.
    I don't get this. Didn't buy the game because of shitty internet? I'm on Telus 3G (Cellular internet) with really shit service (it's Telus after all) and I can play the game fine. I run at between 100 and 300ms with the odd spike here and there. /shrug

    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    It's actually Far more important than some hipster gamers (myself included) that don't want to buy it because of always on DRM.
    Always on DRM I can get behind as it's not borking my machine (Sony rootkit fuckaroo), nor telling me I can't run certain other programs in the background (Dameon tools ect.) I understand and can get behind comanies wanting to protect their IP, and the always online is a good compromise IMHO. In this day and age I don't know to many people that don't have some sort of always on connection, hell, I can take the train from Toronto to Montreal and have internet access the whole way.
    Last edited by Jarlathe; 2012-05-29 at 01:23 PM.

  14. #94
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In a BG
    Posts
    99
    I think the next innovation is the gradual elimination of servers where players will separated merely by playstyles (PvE, PvE, RP, RPPvP). 4 shards.

  15. #95
    The Insane det's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The forums
    Posts
    18,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexotic View Post
    The thing about people crying over lack of innovation is if you add too much innovation, you get just as many people crying saying the game changed too much, I dont wanna play anymore its a completely different game now..... I think they innovate enough to keep the majority happy.
    "I don't know the key to sucess, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone" Bill Cosby

    Yup, I cite this a lot, but it is true. Somebody will always QQ. Can't please everyone all of the time. If you understand and accept that, it is fine. Just because 100, 1000 or 10 000 people whine no matter what you do, you can still create a game that makes 100 000, 1 000 000 or 10 000 000 happy.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 03:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    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.
    I am asking myself a couple of things here. Are you a game designer, if so..what credentials do you have? Blizzard is at the end of the day the only company that keeps 10 million customers paying in a 7 year old MMo while "new MMos with the chance to be innovative" fail to capture even 10% of that. Blizzard is the company that sells 3.5 million (4.7 million incl. AP holders) of a sequel within the first week of release.

    Now...people like you will still insist these are sad day because they (in your eyes) cater to sheep, produce for the masses yada yada yada. Fair enough. If so, I just expect you to be playing something awesome and different and not their products. At the end of the day they are not an arthouse studio that tries to appeal to the critics. They appeal to the masses and it seems they get it done. You can hardly bash them for something that clearly isn't even on their agenda.
    Last edited by det; 2012-05-29 at 01:33 PM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    One cause is a cognitive bias called projection bias. Essentially living inside your own head your entire life makes it exceedingly difficult to understand how others do not also live your same life, think your same thoughts, and hold your same beliefs. In many cases it's quite frustrating to try to empathize and understand why you yourself may not be the center of the universe, which generally results in one 'acting out' in various ways.
    So, in short: the internet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •