Wired Interview with Ion Hazzikostas, Fan Art - Cosmology Chart, Rumor - Diablo 2

[Clone]

Only the 3D art was outsourced.
And that mostly came from the poor directions on Blizzards part, some of employees working there spoke out and pretty much said "we had to follow Blizzards direction on the artstyle".

In other words: Blizzard fucked up, the contractors aren't at fault if you give them shitty directions.
Small trivia here, the lead Artist for Warcraft 3 Reforged left the company in November 2019 (=shortly before release).

For some reason people are incapable of acknowledging Blizzard can and does screw up.

[Darkguyver2020]

I couldn't care less about Warcraft 3.

You people who obsess over things, Blizzard has had bad expansions before I don't then expect everything that comes after to be bad. After the crapfest that was Cataclysm which i hated most, WoD, Mists and Legion i enjoyed thoroughly.

Fine then. It's your money you're throwing away. Don't come crying to me if the Diablo 2 Remaster ends up being a complete turd.

[Nailter]

I like how developers do not understand their own audience at all.

[Mardux]

For some reason people are incapable of acknowledging Blizzard can and does screw up.

And some reason, people are incapable of acknowledging blizzard can and does do thing right.

[Bane-Thunder-God]

And some reason, people are incapable of acknowledging blizzard can and does do thing right.

Hahaha spot on.

Please act like devs can't have missteps, they can also course correct.

Shadowlands looks great.

And Diablo 4 looks Even Better!

[Argorwal]

I like how developers do not understand their own audience at all.

I like how people who post on fan websites like mmo-champion trick themselves into believing they are anywhere close to the average WoW player they talk about in these interviews.

[Kallisto]

Ion is a fine game director and makes great raids, but he is also extremely introverted and really doesn't understand the social aspect whatsoever. He shouldn't really comment on it.

Ah yes your stupid hatred of Introverts as some kind of evil monster under the bed out to kill you and everything you love is showing again.

[Relapses]

I've never said that. But you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

You may have forgotten about this gem but rest assured the internet is forever.

[Gorsameth]

Ion is a fine game director and makes great raids, but he is also extremely introverted and really doesn't understand the social aspect whatsoever. He shouldn't really comment on it.

I think the choice by the community in general to avoid any and all contact where they are able to is much more telling then Ion's comments.

As soon as 'we' could pug dungeons with no hassle we stopped interacting with others to find groups.
As soon as 'we' could progress our gear without joining a guild we stopped joining them.

If players wanted to socialise they could still do so.
You don't want the social aspect, you want other introverts to be forced to socialise with you because you can't do it yourself.

[Kiri]

These days most people dont give a shite about anyone in the game. Clear dailys, do some dungeons/bgs/raids with random peeps, log off. Level a character without utter 1 word to anyone.

Let's be real here, that is a people thing more than a game thing. Back in the day the game forced you to group up, to an extent, but that was about it. There were still tons of people I met in those groups whom I never really interacted with afterwards and who didn't talk much. People who want to socialize did and still can, even in retail. Most people just don't want to and never did.
In my opinion, it was less that vanilla WoW rewarded socializing, but rather that it punished not doing so. WoW simply moved away from that by being less punishing, in part because of the fact that not everyone had the chance. I mean, I seem to be in the minority that can actually see that point, probably because I came from a low pop faction. Not server, faction. The server was pretty full in Vanilla, but only very few players of my faction. Most people rerolled on other servers, which led to the most meaningful social interactions a lot of the time being getting ganked. Vanilla was super frustrating because of that. At least in retail today we are almost always able to find some sort of group for activity X or actually meet allied players while leveling. Whether or not that leads to proper conversations or even friendship depends simply on the people involved.

[Coolthulhu]

Ion Hazzikostas saying something not utterly unhinged? I don't buy it, it must've been a Doppelgänger, the real one is probably locked away in a dungeon. Or a Titan Prison. As to D2 remastered... thanks but no thanks. Made the mistake of getting WC3 remastered, won't make the same mistake again. Not with PoE out there anyways.

[crusadernero]

Let's be real here, that is a people thing more than a game thing. Back in the day the game forced you to group up, to an extent, but that was about it. There were still tons of people I met in those groups whom I never really interacted with afterwards and who didn't talk much. People who want to socialize did and still can, even in retail. Most people just don't want to and never did.
In my opinion, it was less that vanilla WoW rewarded socializing, but rather that it punished not doing so. WoW simply moved away from that by being less punishing, in part because of the fact that not everyone had the chance. I mean, I seem to be in the minority that can actually see that point, probably because I came from a low pop faction. Not server, faction. The server was pretty full in Vanilla, but only very few players of my faction. Most people rerolled on other servers, which led to the most meaningful social interactions a lot of the time being getting ganked. Vanilla was super frustrating because of that. At least in retail today we are almost always able to find some sort of group for activity X or actually meet allied players while leveling. Whether or not that leads to proper conversations or even friendship depends simply on the people involved.

Yeah thats true enough. We were sort of forced into needing other people for basic content like completing quests. Maybe it was a bit much and maybe its a good thing overall that they have stepped away from it. I doubt wow would continue to grown and be what it is today if they had kept sticking with how they made vanilla.

I remember the vanilla days and there were many people I talked to and never saw again also, but I made lots of friends just out of common goals here and there. It rewarded being in a group. Mobs died faster and you could complete quests quicker. This is still a thing in classic.

We have that in retail too, but that comes more into play at max level and when a player takes the decision to try harder content in pvp or pve.

[Orby]

Ironically, your profile pic is of the Rifleman from Reforged.

I actually like the profile pictures they make good avatars

[huldu]

The thing is mmos were very different back in the late 90's and very early 2000. WoW came a long and changed the social aspect of the game quite a bit and overtime for the worse. The game is in a dreadful state right now, there is no denying it. You'd probably run into less toxic players in league of legends now than in wow. How can it be fixed? The truth is it can't and it's only going to get worse because it's just the player mentality these days.

[Sensa1]

Yeah thats true enough. We were sort of forced into needing other people for basic content like completing quests. Maybe it was a bit much and maybe its a good thing overall that they have stepped away from it. I doubt wow would continue to grown and be what it is today if they had kept sticking with how they made vanilla.

I remember the vanilla days and there were many people I talked to and never saw again also, but I made lots of friends just out of common goals here and there. It rewarded being in a group. Mobs died faster and you could complete quests quicker. This is still a thing in classic.

We have that in retail too, but that comes more into play at max level and when a player takes the decision to try harder content in pvp or pve.

Have to totally disagree.

The peak subscriber numbers in WoW were in Wrath. That's undisputed. Thus, the popularity of the game was built upon the systems that were present in Vanilla and slightly refined (certain "QoL" issues) in TBC. The decision to start playing WoW, whether it be in Vanilla, TBC or Wrath had little or nothing to do with "QoL" issues. People came for the hype and the genre and because their friends were playing the game not LFG / LFR and other "QoL" changes. Nobody started playing WoW because of LFG.

While there are many possible explanations for the decline of subscribers post Wrath one thing is clear. The decline corresponds directly with all of the "QoL" changes that reduced the "social" aspects of WoW and the need to rely on others to get things done in the game. The irony of the situation is that the drive to increase "accessibility" actually had the unintended effect of decreasing the attachment players had to the game because it essentially became a solo player experience for 90% or more of the content.

While Classic and Retail are based on the same game (kill x mob, collect loot, PvP and Raid) they are actually very different games. The ongoing success of Classic is directly related to the "social" aspects of what is otherwise a 15 year old game that completely lacks any sense of mystery or exploration. The "social" aspects of Classic are akin to Apple's ecosystem. Once you buy the phone you buy the laptop, iPad and watch and use their other services. In other words lack of "accessibility" creates bonds that persist.

Retail almost totally lacks the ties that bind due to all those supposed "QoL" changes that increased "accessibility". That's why people log on at the beginning of each patch for a few weeks and then stop playing until the next patch. That's why Blizzard keeps developing more and more gated systems to counteract that play style (mission tables, AP power systems etc that try to force you to log on to not fall behind). And that's why Retail will never be as successful as WoW was originally (Vanilla through Wrath) when most of these system either didn't exist or were just being introduced (Wrath).

I would argue if WoW had merely implemented "QoL" changes that didn't change the "forced" social aspect of the game (so no LFG/LFR/CRZ etc etc) but focused on "QoL" changes that improved the overall experience like shorter, more direct flight paths, better gear optimization, Paladins being viable tanks, Druids getting a resurrect etc etc) that WoW would have had more subscribers and been even more successful in the post Wrath period.

[Tickleshot]

Have to totally disagree.

The peak subscriber numbers in WoW were in Wrath. That's undisputed. Thus, the popularity of the game was built upon the systems that were present in Vanilla and slightly refined (certain "QoL" issues) in TBC. The decision to start playing WoW, whether it be in Vanilla, TBC or Wrath had little or nothing to do with "QoL" issues. People came for the hype and the genre and because their friends were playing the game not LFG / LFR and other "QoL" changes. Nobody started playing WoW because of LFG.

While there are many possible explanations for the decline of subscribers post Wrath one thing is clear. The decline corresponds directly with all of the "QoL" changes that reduced the "social" aspects of WoW and the need to rely on others to get things done in the game. The irony of the situation is that the drive to increase "accessibility" actually had the unintended effect of decreasing the attachment players had to the game because it essentially became a solo player experience for 90% or more of the content.

While Classic and Retail are based on the same game (kill x mob, collect loot, PvP and Raid) they are actually very different games. The ongoing success of Classic is directly related to the "social" aspects of what is otherwise a 15 year old game that completely lacks any sense of mystery or exploration. The "social" aspects of Classic are akin to Apple's ecosystem. Once you buy the phone you buy the laptop, iPad and watch and use their other services. In other words lack of "accessibility" creates bonds that persist.

Retail almost totally lacks the ties that bind due to all those supposed "QoL" changes that increased "accessibility". That's why people log on at the beginning of each patch for a few weeks and then stop playing until the next patch. That's why Blizzard keeps developing more and more gated systems to counteract that play style (mission tables, AP power systems etc that try to force you to log on to not fall behind). And that's why Retail will never be as successful as WoW was originally (Vanilla through Wrath) when most of these system either didn't exist or were just being introduced (Wrath).

I would argue if WoW had merely implemented "QoL" changes that didn't change the "forced" social aspect of the game (so no LFG/LFR/CRZ etc etc) but focused on "QoL" changes that improved the overall experience like shorter, more direct flight paths, better gear optimization, Paladins being viable tanks, Druids getting a resurrect etc etc) that WoW would have had more subscribers and been even more successful in the post Wrath period.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. It's been frustrating seeing Blizzard pretend they don't understand the viewpoint you perfectly described. It's as if they are purposely feigning ignorance which encourages staunch Blizzard defenders to continue exclaiming how everything is fine as it is currently.

[Zephire]

Bugs? Bruh, they removed features, especially those important to multiplayer. There is still no ladder, for example. And none of the few patches which came out added anything big. Btw, where is that "agressive patching" they promised?
Not to mention the whole lying/false advertising thing.

Sure, Diablo 2 is isometric game, much easier, but to blindly trust them now is foolish.

My point is that Diablo 2 isn't current iteration of the Diablo franchise. Hence, it will be a remastered version, like what they did to SC1. WC3 is the latest iteration of the RTS version of WarCraft. That's my guess at least.

I'm not a ladder guy, I play mostly custom and campain mode and I see that some things that didn't work before, now work. Such as the name of the character speaking during cutsceens in campain mode when you have a ultrawide screen which is huge for my experience in said mode. I'm really happy for that.

Have to totally disagree.

The peak subscriber numbers in WoW were in Wrath. That's undisputed. Thus, the popularity of the game was built upon the systems that were present in Vanilla and slightly refined (certain "QoL" issues) in TBC. The decision to start playing WoW, whether it be in Vanilla, TBC or Wrath had little or nothing to do with "QoL" issues. People came for the hype and the genre and because their friends were playing the game not LFG / LFR and other "QoL" changes. Nobody started playing WoW because of LFG.

While there are many possible explanations for the decline of subscribers post Wrath one thing is clear. The decline corresponds directly with all of the "QoL" changes that reduced the "social" aspects of WoW and the need to rely on others to get things done in the game. The irony of the situation is that the drive to increase "accessibility" actually had the unintended effect of decreasing the attachment players had to the game because it essentially became a solo player experience for 90% or more of the content.

What you say might be true, I just want to point out that the decline might not have to do with "QoL" changes at all but rather the gaming sceen in general becoming more accesable. Those "QoL" might even have slowed the decline that was inevetable, they might have kept players play a bit longer. It's probably a mix of a lot of factors.

I also think a player base split happened where we got a group all for the classic style and one all for the retail style and those groups don't really mix, it's either one or the other. Before the "QoL" changes players had no choice so there were no split (simply put).

I'm totally open to being wrong, this was just a thought I had and I have nothing backing it up. I do think there's some merit in the fact that back in the day, when gaming wasn't mainstream, you didn't have access to the insane amount of different games you have now when it comes to multiplayer and it's easier to find a game that fit's you "perfectly" instead of only having a few choices which fit you to 50%. "You do with what you have" comes to mind.

I mean, WoW came just after we got a better connection than dial-up :P

[Rafoel]

The reality is that back in the day almost everybody was playing the game wrong.

And this is why Ion has been horrible as a Game Director. The first and main goal of any game is to give players opportunities to have fun. However, Ion since the day he started playing WoW belonged to the tiny subset of the playerbase that only cared about competition and the so called "min maxing". When he became Game Director, he butchered all other aspects of WoW, as he never learnt to appreciate them, and thus deemed them obsolete in contrast with mathematically complicated combat.

There is no right or wrong way of playing the game. There is no binary result of playing WoW. Your enjoyment isn't determined by your serverwide dps rank.

Basically, this is Ion during Vanilla: https://imgflip.com/i/413g8b

[TheLucky1]

And this is why Ion has been horrible as a Game Director. The first and main goal of any game is to give players opportunities to have fun. However, Ion since the day he started playing WoW belonged to the tiny subset of the playerbase that only cared about competition and the so called "min maxing". When he became Game Director, he butchered all other aspects of WoW, as he never learnt to appreciate them, and thus deemed them obsolete in contrast with mathematically complicated combat.

There is no right or wrong way of playing the game. There is no binary result of playing WoW. Your enjoyment isn't determined by your serverwide dps rank.

Basically, this is Ion during Vanilla: https://imgflip.com/i/413g8b

Not sure if you guys do this intentionally but thats not his point and that should be pretty obvious if you read the interview and not only the snipets here..

Mathematicaly there is a right and a wrong answer to increasing things like your performance, the classic that is playable now is way more figured out than back 15 years ago.

And together with that, even though you can beat anything with suboptimal class combs and suboptimal builds because the content is so easy, some people stil care about min maxing their numbers instead of min maxing their fun, and sadly also min maxing the numbers of those around them aka gatekeeping.

Look, if ret paladins suck at dps that is a problem if you can't bring the boss down because of that, that's however just not the case with how easy stuff is, it'll only take you a few seconds longer.

[Caerrona]

Have to totally disagree.

The peak subscriber numbers in WoW were in Wrath. That's undisputed. Thus, the popularity of the game was built upon the systems that were present in Vanilla and slightly refined (certain "QoL" issues) in TBC. The decision to start playing WoW, whether it be in Vanilla, TBC or Wrath had little or nothing to do with "QoL" issues. People came for the hype and the genre and because their friends were playing the game not LFG / LFR and other "QoL" changes. Nobody started playing WoW because of LFG.

While there are many possible explanations for the decline of subscribers post Wrath one thing is clear. The decline corresponds directly with all of the "QoL" changes that reduced the "social" aspects of WoW and the need to rely on others to get things done in the game. The irony of the situation is that the drive to increase "accessibility" actually had the unintended effect of decreasing the attachment players had to the game because it essentially became a solo player experience for 90% or more of the content.

While Classic and Retail are based on the same game (kill x mob, collect loot, PvP and Raid) they are actually very different games. The ongoing success of Classic is directly related to the "social" aspects of what is otherwise a 15 year old game that completely lacks any sense of mystery or exploration. The "social" aspects of Classic are akin to Apple's ecosystem. Once you buy the phone you buy the laptop, iPad and watch and use their other services. In other words lack of "accessibility" creates bonds that persist.

Retail almost totally lacks the ties that bind due to all those supposed "QoL" changes that increased "accessibility". That's why people log on at the beginning of each patch for a few weeks and then stop playing until the next patch. That's why Blizzard keeps developing more and more gated systems to counteract that play style (mission tables, AP power systems etc that try to force you to log on to not fall behind). And that's why Retail will never be as successful as WoW was originally (Vanilla through Wrath) when most of these system either didn't exist or were just being introduced (Wrath).

I would argue if WoW had merely implemented "QoL" changes that didn't change the "forced" social aspect of the game (so no LFG/LFR/CRZ etc etc) but focused on "QoL" changes that improved the overall experience like shorter, more direct flight paths, better gear optimization, Paladins being viable tanks, Druids getting a resurrect etc etc) that WoW would have had more subscribers and been even more successful in the post Wrath period.

I understand the points you are trying to make but to seriously think that lfg is was stopped wow from scaling into infinity subscribers is kinda bat shit crazy.

As a poster above mentioned in recent years the number of games let alone mmos have skyrocketed. I can open up my steam right now a play 1 of like 500 games i own.

Forced social interaction was never a thing, you could level without killing elites, you find a group to grind dungeons and not say one word for hours.

And even the earnings call kinda proves you wrong. Western audiences are more interested in retails playstyle than classics. Whereas eastern ( not sure if this includes eu i just take that as china and crew) enjoy the grinds of classic.
(Also not sure what region you fall into but tou get my point. I play in the west so my view is of the west.)

If anything lfg and lfr kept wow from going full wildstar and kept enough players to make it worth it for blizzard. If they have 1 mil "casual" players and 200k raiders and m+ players any business worth anything would want to keep the 1 mil.
*random numbers don't get your panties twisted, put down the mountain dew and breath first*