399 réponses à ce sujet

[Borschtbeet]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Diablo III is going to be the next Daikatana. It will fail and destroy Blizzard' reputation much as Daikatana's failure destroyed John Romero's reputation.

What other great predictions for the future do you have, oh great seer? Perhaps you have some FACTS to back up your ridiculous accusation instead of just childish outbursts?

WoW may "suck" in the eyes of many gamers, but it's generating revenue faster than a single idea any of us on these boards has ever come up with. Success isn't measured in your approval, it's measured in dollar bills. You know the SC2 beta started recently? I know a couple people that have played. Know what? Haven't heard any complaints yet, just awesomeness. Probably means Blizzard bagged another one. What makes you think Diablo III, one particular game that is still YEARS off, is so obviously a fail that your opinion has any merit?

I've enjoyed many Bioware games. They have always made great ones. And their long-term quality control has been acceptable up until now...grrrr...but I have logged more hours playing SC than all the many Bioware games I've played combined. It's people like you that are going to make me go vote for Blizzard, thanks to your utter ignorance.

I would say Diablo III's inevitable failure will be due mostly to the fact that it has been 10 years and the gameplay has not evolved in the sligthest.  Hell, they don't even have as many classes as Diablo II did.
People are going to look back at all the years they waited for the game and they're going to wonder how it took that long to make such a simplistic game.

[cynicalsaint1]

Just tweeted a vote, now I've used twitter for two things! Bioware Bazaar and voting for Bioware XD

[Kaiser Shepard]

Voted for BioWare.



Let's see how far we'll get.

[Feraele]

Blizzard creeping up....on Bioware...



vote n' tweet, vote n' tweet.

[Fallunlight]

Its going to be a stressful day for us Hardcores. Keep up the effort, we WILL win!

[Wicked 702]

Borschtbeet wrote...

I would say Diablo III's inevitable failure will be due mostly to the fact that it has been 10 years and the gameplay has not evolved in the sligthest.  Hell, they don't even have as many classes as Diablo II did.
People are going to look back at all the years they waited for the game and they're going to wonder how it took that long to make such a simplistic game.

That's the same argument I've heard against Square-Enix and the linearity of FFXIII. People think the game is bad because it hasn't evolved since the current generation of RPGs are trying to be more "open" like MMOs. Do people not realize that there is a large demographic, me included, that perhaps don't want certain game types to "evolve". Maybe I like the way it was before, I just want it done bigger and better. In this case if Diablo III is mostly like Diablo 2, only larger and more detailed, I'll be quite happy. Nothing NEEDS to change for me.

Second, Diablo III has exactly the same number of classes as Diablo II when it came out. They just haven't revealed the fifth class yet. (Check wikipedia) Remember, this game is FAR from being complete. Unless you can point me to an article that states they've decided to stick with 4. Everything I read says they are going 5. Also, please try to remember that this game was announced only 18 months ago. For Blizzard, that means this is still the baby stages. And I know everyone hates their development times but I can tell you that Bioware has nearly lost me for good with DA:O and it's multiple game breaking bugs so maybe I'm part of the group that has patience.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Tweeted for BioWare as well, also voted for Valve. Might tweet for Valve later, the last thing I want is "Zynga" winning the contest.

Edit: done!

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 01 avril 2010 - 09:37 .

[Suolara]

Sten disapproves of Blizzard. 'Nuff said.

[Abriael_CG]

Wicked 702 wrote...
That's the same argument I've heard against Square-Enix and the linearity of FFXIII. People think the game is bad because it hasn't evolved since the current generation of RPGs are trying to be more "open" like MMOs. Do people not realize that there is a large demographic, me included, that perhaps don't want certain game types to "evolve". Maybe I like the way it was before, I just want it done bigger and better. In this case if Diablo III is mostly like Diablo 2, only larger and more detailed, I'll be quite happy. Nothing NEEDS to change for me.

Actually Final Fantasy has evolved a LOT since the first chapters. It just hasn't evolved in the direction most of the haters would want.

On the other hand, Blizzard is well known for never evolving their games. Diablo 3 will be little more than a Diablo 2 clone, Starcraft 2 is a Starcraft 1 clone (and brings the RTS industry back at least 5 years, trying to bringing horribly outdated and tedius mechanics like base building and troop massing back to popularity, blah).

[niakori]

While you're at it, vote for Valve vs Zynga... seriously, Zynga beat Square Enix in round 4.

[Wicked 702]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
That's the same argument I've heard against Square-Enix and the linearity of FFXIII. People think the game is bad because it hasn't evolved since the current generation of RPGs are trying to be more "open" like MMOs. Do people not realize that there is a large demographic, me included, that perhaps don't want certain game types to "evolve". Maybe I like the way it was before, I just want it done bigger and better. In this case if Diablo III is mostly like Diablo 2, only larger and more detailed, I'll be quite happy. Nothing NEEDS to change for me.

Actually Final Fantasy has evolved a LOT since the first chapters. It just hasn't evolved in the direction most of the haters would want.

On the other hand, Blizzard is well known for never evolving their games. Diablo 3 will be little more than a Diablo 2 clone, Starcraft 2 is a Starcraft 1 clone (and brings the RTS industry back at least 5 years, trying to bringing horribly outdated and tedius mechanics like base building and troop massing back to popularity, blah).

Yes, I know it has. I agree with you completely. But the big complaint I've seen over and over has been with the linearity aspect. People say things like, "With today's RPGs like Origins, a linear story line in an RPG is unacceptable! Rabble Rabble!" No, a linear story line is a design choice, like any other. Some people will enjoy it, others will not. You can't please everyone as you pointed out.

By my question to you is this: SC1 is widely accepted as being an extremely successful RTS. If that's the case, then why change a winning formula? If something's not broken, why fix it? Basically I'm saying that if Blizzard decides to "evolve", they have to take a risk. They risk that their new formula will not work as well as the old. FOR EXAMPLE: I think Warcraft III was the worst RTS I've ever played. Many others, here included, seemed to love it. That is a perfect example of a foray into a different formula that turned players, like myself and my friends, off of the Warcraft series. For me, I would prefer if SC2 and D3 follow the same formulas as the others because they worked FOR US.

Edit: In the end, Blizzard will do whatever they think will make them the most money. Either they'll stick with the tried and true, or they'll try something new. It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad", it's all profit driven. "Good" or "bad" is what we, the players, will assign based on our personal preferences.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 01 avril 2010 - 09:58 .

[Lamiea]

niakori wrote...

While you're at it, vote for Valve vs Zynga... seriously, Zynga beat Square Enix in round 4.

What does Zynga make anyways? I've never heard of it.

[Miriel Amarinth]

Please vote also in the other poll for Valve vs. Zynga. For the love of all that's good and holy in the world of gaming development let there at least be a worthy final and not another Zynga vs. lolwut.



Also if you have a twitter account, then tweet! You get a second vote for just following these 3 easy steps:



- link your twitter account to your escapist account (profile options)

- follow @TheEscapistMag

- tweet the following line:

* for 2nd vote for Valve: I voted for @steam_games in Round 5 of The Escapist's March Mayhem: http://bit.ly/aANIUR #escMM

*for 2nd vote for Bioware: I voted for @biofeed in Round 5 of The Escapist's March Mayhem: http://bit.ly/aANIUR #escMM

[Borschtbeet]

The reason why Blizzard should change their formula is because it's been over a decade. The gameplay in Diablo III might not necessarily be bad but it will feel dated. If I want to play old school games(and Hell, I feel nostalgic sometimes) I will play an old school game. However, when I buy new games I expect new innovations and a fresh experience. The winning formula may have been revolutionary over a decade ago but today judging from what I've seen of Blizzard's latest work it just looks stale.

So far, only 4 classes have been announced. There may be a 5th class later on but that won't change the fact that Diablo III is just going to be a graphically revamped rehash of a 10 year old game.



You want to know how you make a good sequel? Look at Resident Evil 4. The previous Resident Evil games weren't bad, but they were getting stale. Resident Evil 4 made the series feel fresh again.

[Masticetobbacco]

you know blizzard started off just like Bioware



they were the new kids on the block, no one expected them to do shi.t. They focused on a genre of games and developped one of the best playing games of all time. I still remember the good old days playing diablo and starcraft.



Eventually blizzard made too much revenue and succumbed to corporate greed. WoW has been terribly milked, ****ty updates, and plans on a new expansion zzzzz. Starcraft 2 will also be milked, they plan to release many expansion packs



Bioware is on the verge of this, and the whole cycle repeats again and again. Sigh, any other good still uncorrupted gaming companies?

[Ponce de Leon]

While I love WC3, I am not really afraid to state it's completely copied from Starcraft. Seriously, look at this :



- Exclude Orcs as playable campaign in WC3.

- Starting campaign - human... in which a hero gets corrupted. Never mind, the goal is still gotten.

- Second campaign - the tainted creatures, featuring the hero that got corrupted (Kerrigan and Arthas). This leads to an almost world ending, for a great enemy gets much power (the big demon and the big brain of Zerg).

- Third campaign - the knights in the shiny armors come out, they ultimately save the world with an alliance of all races (Prothos and Humans and Night Elves with (Orcs) and humans).

EXPANSION :

- due to big corruption, the first campaign takes the shiny knights away from their homeland (although for different goals, I give you that).

- second campaign, you follow a different faction of humans (the terrans from real Earth and the Blood elves)

- last campaign, return to the corrupted. Which with a great startegy and some levels, get power gradually (or lose in case of Arthas), to come to the big final battle, where everyone faces everyone else. At the end, the corrupted hero, becomes Lich King/Queen of the hive...

[Sad Dragon]

Borschtbeet wrote...

The reason why Blizzard should change their formula is because it's been over a decade.

What kind of reasoning is that? The wheel have looked the same for centuries its a bit dated dont you think? ;P
If it works it work. Hasnt Western-RPGs been the same since time immamorial as well, just graphical updates?

As for D3, D2 is extremly popular today and even new games are trying to emulate it - i.e. Torchlight. It fills its nitch perfectly. It isnt called hack and slash for nothing. If people are still trying to emulate the game, why should they make drastic changes?

SC - the most popular RTS in the history of RTSs - its still being sold mind you so judging by total sales alone...
The antisipation for SC2 alone is greater then any game i can remember - atleast amongst my friends and people around me - though mind you one of them is just drooling over D3.

Both D3 and SC2 will make alot of money when they are released make no misstake.

/TSD

[Maria Caliban]

Bioware is winning. Show your support for them!

[Sad Dragon]

dark-lauron wrote...
...

Never thought to hard about that but that made me laugh. Still though while the same overaching story plot the execution is handled differently. All the same your post made me laugh

/TSD

[DarthCaine]

I voted for Blizzard ..... not!

[Wicked 702]

dark-lauron wrote...

While I love WC3, I am not really afraid to state it's completely copied from Starcraft. Seriously, look at this :

- Exclude Orcs as playable campaign in WC3.
- Starting campaign - human... in which a hero gets corrupted. Never mind, the goal is still gotten.
- Second campaign - the tainted creatures, featuring the hero that got corrupted (Kerrigan and Arthas). This leads to an almost world ending, for a great enemy gets much power (the big demon and the big brain of Zerg).
- Third campaign - the knights in the shiny armors come out, they ultimately save the world with an alliance of all races (Prothos and Humans and Night Elves with (Orcs) and humans).
EXPANSION :
- due to big corruption, the first campaign takes the shiny knights away from their homeland (although for different goals, I give you that).
- second campaign, you follow a different faction of humans (the terrans from real Earth and the Blood elves)
- last campaign, return to the corrupted. Which with a great startegy and some levels, get power gradually (or lose in case of Arthas), to come to the big final battle, where everyone faces everyone else. At the end, the corrupted hero, becomes Lich King/Queen of the hive...

Ok, story perspective is not part of my personal consideration so I won't argue with you there. I'm talking strictly about gameplay mechanics. While the two share many similarities in the farm, build buildings, build troops, attack en masse mentality, WC3 diverges greatly from SC in the use of heroes. Every battle in WC3 essentially turned into a "who can level their hero(es) the fastest by rushing creeps" game. Many times I would spend an entire game building a well-planned and enormous army, only to have it decimated by a singular level 8-10 hero and a few back-up troops. Inevitably, I always had to fall back into the "build a hero or two and focus your army around making them stronger" strategy. I HATED that crap. I could NEVER understand why Blizzard neglected to put an option into the game to simply turn heroes off. Micro-manage to the utmost.

I much prefer the SC way where one game I can build a balanced army, the next I can play islands and go all air, or whatever mix and match I want (that's viable based on the troops combinations). At least I would feel like those 10 squads of units had purpose instead of focusing all my might into one idiotic hero. Stupid...

[Sad Dragon]

Wicked 702 wrote...
...

Know what you mean. Though have to say i had a change of heart after seeing some progames from Blizzcon - while i still like StarCraft better those games made me open up my eyes for the game that is WC3. Just thought i should put it out there ^^;

/TSD

[Wicked 702]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
...

Know what you mean. Though have to say i had a change of heart after seeing some progames from Blizzcon - while i still like StarCraft better those games made me open up my eyes for the game that is WC3. Just thought i should put it out there ^^;

/TSD

Obviously it all comes down to personal preference. For us, the need to "evolve" is less important than sticking to an established formula. Though I completely understand the other end of the spectrum, I do not see the obsessive requirement that ALL companies and genres must evolve in order to survive. Some companies will change the formula and appeal to those people, others will leave it the same and appeal to others. Only when the formula appeals to a less than profitable amount of people will it go away.

This "evolution" of a product (or lack of) doesn't make one company better or worse than another. Their execution of their chosen path does, however.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 01 avril 2010 - 10:32 .

[Abriael_CG]

Also remember that Bioware is published by EA, Blizzard by Activision. While EA used to be the evil overlord of gaming, they did a lot to shed that mantle (they still are far from perfect, but they're an hell of a lot better than they used to be). Activision is the one true entity that every self-respecting gamer should hate.

Never forget Brutal Legend!

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 01 avril 2010 - 10:38 .

[Abriael_CG]

Damn double posts...

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 01 avril 2010 - 10:36 .