Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
  1. #401
    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.

  2. #402
    Legendary!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    On the road to my inevitable death.
    Posts
    6,362
    Blizzard is a quality game maker the same way Square Enix is.

  3. #403
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    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, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn 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, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  4. #404
    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.

  5. #405
    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.

  6. #406
    Bloodsail Admiral
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,026
    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...

  7. #407
    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.

  8. #408
    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.

  9. #409
    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.

  10. #410
    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".

  11. #411
    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.

  12. #412
    Don't think there's a question that their reputation has declined because of some of the changes they've done.

  13. #413
    Epic!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,583
    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.

  14. #414
    "How are people even defending diablo 3?"

    I am defending D3 because my wife and I got hundreds of hours of fun entertainment out of it. What more can you ask out of a game. We started at launch, and the only reason we stopped is we switched to WOW. So, for us, D3 and WOW have been very high quality fun games that have provided us quite a bit of entertainment and helped keep us together. This is FAR more than we would expect out of getting D3 well for free (Annual Pass) plus our sub fee for WOW.

    The money we have given to Blizzard is VERY well worth it. In our opinion, WOW puts out VERY HIGH quality games.

    Thank you Blizzard

  15. #415
    I think they absolutely were, without any doubt - but I say that as past tense because it seems to me that once 'Lackavision' slithered into Blizz, the quality began a downhill slide, favoring profits over quality - something 'Lackavision' is known for.
    I used to be snow white, but I drifted...

  16. #416
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    a fair counter-question is, if you are an activision-blizzard shareholder, who do you want running the games at blizzard? gamers who want to make a game more or less that they would enjoy, or businessmen who want to maximize revenues?

    Once you accept the premise that you want the game to attract people who may never have played a video game before and broadly tune the game towards that market, then I don't see where the gamers' game fits in anymore.

    blizzard isn't even shy about this in general - look at d3. real money microtransaction ah with all kinds of hurdles against converting that 'money' into non-blizzard held currency...
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn 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, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  17. #417
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    a fair counter-question is, if you are an activision-blizzard shareholder, who do you want running the games at blizzard? gamers who want to make a game more or less that they would enjoy, or businessmen who want to maximize revenues?
    They should make games for gamers, not just for money. Square Enix tried this tactic what Blizzard is doing now and it resulted financial catastrophy for them. If the product is good it will sell.

Posting Permissions

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