Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
LastLast
  1. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilperch View Post
    StarCraft II is fun if you play it with friends or against other players, but the campaign is awful.
    Ahahaha, no. Its got one of the best single player campaigns ever put into an RTS.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    It isn't a matter of being sloppy, it's a decision about spending resources.
    And if you spend resources into wrong places like eyecandy (GW2, AoC, Aion, FFXIV...) the end result is there's no lasting power in the game. People come back to WoW because it's done so well, not because of what it looks like.

    Ever since Half-Life did completely seamless world in 1998 that has been my measuring stick of sloppy work in AAA 3D games.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    With a game the decision is more nuanced; you are balancing the immersion breaking of a loading screen versus the immersion breaking of constant luls in action.
    Which MMORPG has constant action? Oh... None?
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  3. #403
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Somewhere bright.
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Durandro View Post
    Ahahaha, no. Its got one of the best single player campaigns ever put into an RTS.
    I don't want to argue. Everyone has their own opinion.

    I just didn't like it. In the opening scene, Mengsk releases Tychus from prison and sends him on a mysterious mission. It was written to be some kind of "shocking twist ending" when they had him reveal who he was working for all along, and we were supposed to feel emotion when Jim shot him in the face. I didn't feel anything. The characters were flat and uninteresting.

    In the original StarCraft, Jim Raynor was a cunning tactician. He was a smart and brave leader. In SCII, he's an idiot. A dim-witted cowboy who has the hots for the mutated chick that killed his best friend, Fenix.

    Horner: "Sir, it looks like the sun's energy jumped 500%!"
    Raynor: "Whoa, slow down Matt! What does it mean?"

    The dialog was pretty poorly written.

    There's more, but like I said... I don't want to argue.

    If you think its good, then great. I just didn't care for it.

  4. #404
    Over 9000! Baar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    9,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    As I said one of the important lessons of Eve is you are not the ship that you fly and the eye watering amount of real money comes from the conversion of PLEX that can be bought for real money and then sold for ISK. Those ships were never purchased for actual money.



    You have just not noticed when your internet has gone down there is simply no way a connection has been 100% reliable for 5 or 6 years.
    99% of the time my pc is on and connected to a IRC channel. I have never disconnected from this channel without me disconnecting myself.(or stupid auto windows updates)

    I'm not saying ALL connections are like this. but I would bet it's more the norm than not.

  5. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by Malenurse View Post
    Yes, yes, but you cant always measure the quality just by looking at numbers. Just because something sells it doesnt mean it's as deep and immersive as for example D2.
    It is very likely that kotick, morhaime, and morhaime's bonus goalposts in fact measure it exactly that way - by the numbers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TyrantWave View Post
    And I'll respectfully disagree. As I said, I can't think of a single compelling reason other than severe nostalgia why people would rate it so highly.
    this in and of itself is a highly biased viewpoint - essentially, across the present and former playerbase, you cannot recognize that some cross-section would in fact actually prefer that expansion, and that any such vote is totally based on this 'nostalgia' thing I read about here?

    Comments like this are self-disqualifying on having any credibility on a topic - not being able to understand that other people have opinions wildly divergent from your own for perfectly legitimate reasons (not just the nostalgia card).

    [edit - in later post you actually are a lot more reasonable so maybe I am dead wrong here]

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Easy...don't apply logic on internet forums

    We find a justification for anything....
    Indeed, the forum has many posters who use public numbers in a misleading or deceptive fashion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Seefer View Post
    ET for the Atari sold quite well (for it's time) but it was BEYOND horrible.
    and how about pac-man? they must have been embarrassed to release that cartridge.

    Asteroids was at least functionally very similar to the coin-op.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vankrys View Post
    on the basis that TBC was different than MoP and that people like different thing, why is it that people that prefer TBC are necessarly wrong according to you?
    I hate coconut, i just hate it, don't ask. Do i say that people that like coconut are wrong? are nostalgic? have no taste?
    proper presentation is people who (in the US) say they liked Old Coca-Cola better than New Coke are just being nostalgic. New coke and old coke are different, but there is no objective reason other than nostalgia for someone to say they prefer the old coke.
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-08-07 at 02:37 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  6. #406
    Scarab Lord namelessone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    4,328
    Yeah, absolutely, they just attracted too many of the wrong kind of players.
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  7. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    proper presentation is people who (in the US) say they liked Old Coca-Cola better than New Coke are just being nostalgic. New coke and old coke are different, but there is no objective reason other than nostalgia for someone to say they prefer the old coke.
    i'm confused
    are you saying it's impossible for someone to think new coke is shit and that old coke was actually good
    because new coke is shit and old coke is good

    or is this just for example purposes
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  8. #408
    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    Yeah, absolutely, they just attracted too many of the wrong kind of players.
    They attrracted too many of the wrong kind of players because the game is very lacking in quality so it attracted people who dont care about quality gameplay but simply ease, convenience, and gimmicks.

  9. #409
    Blizzard is a quality game maker the same way Square Enix is.

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    i'm confused
    are you saying it's impossible for someone to think new coke is shit and that old coke was actually good
    because new coke is shit and old coke is good

    or is this just for example purposes
    sorry, it was illustrating the essence of the attitude that people who state that they prefer previous game-states can only possibly be motivated by nostalgia.

    based on forum reasoning, the only possible reason you could prefer old coke today is nostalgia. the different taste, use of sugar instead of corn syrup, etc., are totally irrelevant - its nostalgia, damnit!! Even if you get a foreign bottle where sugar is still used and the syrup was never changed and enjoy it as much as you remember (private server), its still nostalgia!!!!!!!!!
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  11. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Which MMORPG has constant action? Oh... None?
    That's what I said, yes; all games have down time. Some let you get a cup of coffee, some don't.

    Though admittedly there are a few that do a good job of keeping the action fast and removing play slowing mechanics like inventory micro-management and non-intuitive content gating such as numeric hard level requirements.

  12. #412
    I think they can still make a quality game in terms of polish. When it comes to running around and combat, things always seem to feel the way they should.

    When it comes to the content available in their games I feel like they could a much better job.

  13. #413
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,021
    No, their creativity and ability to create quality story/quest content is in the gutter, rendering most of their games unplayable. I barely made it through D3 because the writing and story were embarrassingly bad. StarCraft II was a little better, but still dreck. And I just quit World of Warcraft because they have the factions doing illogical shit and seem to heavily prefer one side of the other, leaving the cast aside faction little in terms of development or quality content.

    And don't get me started on the dialogues...

  14. #414
    Hard to say whether Blizzard are still making quality games. I played WoW for 5 or 6 years, and I can't argue that it provided many hours of entertainment until Cata which I quit during the first 3 months through boredom. I played MoP until January and haven't played it since. I think I got to the stage where I got bored of MMO's as I did for FPS games back in the day. Shooters were fun until the cheats ruined the online experience, the casuals moaning because they couldn't compete with half-decent players, but they just got boring, different versions of the same old game with different maps.

    D3, my favourite game turd. I won't lie, the first play through was great, but literally it was just plain boring after that, then hours of farming for nothing, buy gear off AH. But after 200+ hours, what was the point. I think it was one of the most disappointing games I have ever played, imo.

    It seems to me nowadays that the games companies keep one eye on the spreadsheet when making games. They're not interested in innovation or making fun games to play anymore, it all comes down to time/costs/resources/profit. The technology has moved on significantly from the 1990s, but sadly the games companies haven't.

  15. #415
    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    That's what I said, yes; all games have down time. Some let you get a cup of coffee, some don't.
    My point was: all MMORPGs could hide the loading screens in the lull between action if they wanted to, but that level of polish in WoW simply does not exist on most games.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilperch View Post
    I don't want to argue. Everyone has their own opinion.

    I just didn't like it. In the opening scene, Mengsk releases Tychus from prison and sends him on a mysterious mission. It was written to be some kind of "shocking twist ending" when they had him reveal who he was working for all along, and we were supposed to feel emotion when Jim shot him in the face. I didn't feel anything. The characters were flat and uninteresting.

    In the original StarCraft, Jim Raynor was a cunning tactician. He was a smart and brave leader. In SCII, he's an idiot. A dim-witted cowboy who has the hots for the mutated chick that killed his best friend, Fenix.

    Horner: "Sir, it looks like the sun's energy jumped 500%!"
    Raynor: "Whoa, slow down Matt! What does it mean?"

    The dialog was pretty poorly written.

    There's more, but like I said... I don't want to argue.

    If you think its good, then great. I just didn't care for it.
    ///The scene of the Supernova\\\

    The stupid response Raynor said is actually suppose to be their for the scapegoat character for the "dummy" audience viewers of science-fiction.

    It's a poor writers choice of explaining something to the viewer. Instead of addressing the viewer directly (Which would cause a lot of problems) they use a scapegoat, use the game characters and have them act stupid who is then answered promptly by another "smarter" character.

    If it was done like this, It might be a lot better...

    Pilot A: "Sir (Addresses Horner), the sun's energy level just jumped 500%!"
    Horner: "Sir (Addresses Raynor), I recommend we stay a safe distance between us and that supernova."

    *Jim Raynor stays silent, thinking for a moment.*

    Raynor: "No, we need that Artifact. We can't grab it if the planet is fried like a... *Insert corny southern food joke*" *Pause* "Matt, how much time do we have before our asses are cooked?"

    Etc... But I hope you get the point.

    I'm sure what I have written could of been tweaked better, but you don't need to treat the audience like a bunch of shit-heads. So what if they don't understand, explain it to them like adults or try to mask it like your talking to an adult.
    If they didn't understand it at first. They would either not care at all or they would go out of their way to figure it out. And it's their job to creatively tell the player without using a terrible choice scapegoat.
    ^
    To which I tried to do my best above, Raynor & Horner knows it's going Supernova. But Raynor has to make the tough judgement call to whether they should go retrieve the Artifact or not in such dangerous conditions.

    I added in the Pilot, because in my mind the Pilot should be the only technically monitoring "Energy Levels" and he would address to the next higher-rank which would be Horner I suppose, and then he would address Raynor.

    I also agree Raynor is suppose to be this veteran warrior, yet he is portrayed like a dumbass in this situation.

    /////////////
    Also for me personally, the cutting edge of young inspiration in the company just feels stale. 10 years ago this would of been great releases, but now I just see the company becoming very stale, very slow in reacting to other competing products and dying very slowly if it hasn't accelerated already.

    Don't take what I said a bad thing necessarily, I grew up on Blizzard games ONLY (I literally spent 1-2 hours a month on a N64 console or trying out some other game before returning to any of the Blizzard games). Starcraft from age 6 to 11. Warcraft was my immediate game afterwards for another 3-4 years, and World of Warcraft was my next 24/7 addicted game I played till the age of 18.
    I've played a little more of a decade of ONLY BLIZZARD games, my dream use to be working for them one day. But after quiting WoW and moving on to the world wide side of games, I just can't see how Blizzard can ever redeem themselves as top dog of the niche gaming market (RTS, ARPG, MMORPG). They are good, but they are "old" good.
    Last edited by Shurkuris; 2013-08-07 at 10:58 PM.

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilperch View Post
    I don't want to argue. Everyone has their own opinion.

    I just didn't like it. In the opening scene, Mengsk releases Tychus from prison and sends him on a mysterious mission. It was written to be some kind of "shocking twist ending" when they had him reveal who he was working for all along, and we were supposed to feel emotion when Jim shot him in the face. I didn't feel anything. The characters were flat and uninteresting.

    In the original StarCraft, Jim Raynor was a cunning tactician. He was a smart and brave leader. In SCII, he's an idiot. A dim-witted cowboy who has the hots for the mutated chick that killed his best friend, Fenix.

    Horner: "Sir, it looks like the sun's energy jumped 500%!"
    Raynor: "Whoa, slow down Matt! What does it mean?"

    The dialog was pretty poorly written.

    There's more, but like I said... I don't want to argue.

    If you think its good, then great. I just didn't care for it.
    You're more talking about the story, which is granted pretty horrible. Wish they would have kept it gritty like the original.

    But gameplay-wise, the campaigns are much more inventive than any missions from Starcraft 1, which were pretty much variations of "Survive for X", "Obtain artifact" or "Destroy all enemies".

  18. #418
    How are people even defending diablo 3? The game WAS NEVER even beta Tested. If they actually tested the game then maybe it would have been a great game at launch because all of the broken stuff would have been fixed during proper testing using player feedback. Go back and find the old Diablo 3 videos from 2-3 years ago showing what the game was SUPPOSED to be like. It just looks awesome. Then for some reason they just scrapped it all. Even something as simple as not having the RMAH and actually getting your drops from playing the game would have been awesome.

  19. #419
    Don't think there's a question that their reputation has declined because of some of the changes they've done.

  20. #420
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by gee View Post
    Blizzard hasn't produced anything exciting in years. SC2 is just SC with better graphics, it's not like it's any different. Diablo III was a huge let down and their cash shop plans for Diablo didn't work at all. WoW has been a disaster since WotLK. the last good stuff that came out of Blizzard was TBC and to some degree WotLK, and that was 5 years ago.

    5 years! And they achieved a big nothing.
    And that is why Starcraft II is still perfect... you may be a bit too young to have realized this on your own, but if something isn't broken, you don't "fix" it. Unfortunately the teams assigned to WoW and Diablo can't seem to get that into their heads.

Posting Permissions

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