275 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

One of the reasons (now) why Blizzard can take so long to development and polish games is because of the WoW cash cow.

Unlike many other studios, they can afford to take their time because the company isn't under major time pressure to complete projects early. They have the funding to keep going over the long term rather than project to project.

This is also true for Valve, and to a lesser degree, Bethesda.

Bioware unfortunately, are wholly at the mercy of EA.

[Euno17]

Mecher3k wrote...
lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

Ahh yes - the ability to report someone. Gotta love it.

Try to play better with others next time .

[Boiny Bunny]

@ Mecher3k: Perhaps you misinterpreted what I wrote. Appreciation of stories is mostly subjective.

When I say quality, I am referring to the level of polish in the overall product. That includes things such as optimisation to run on a wide range of PCs without any crashing/errors, almost no bugs present whatsoever, continual support for the game (for both technical issues and adding new features to the game - all for free) up to 10 years down the track after release, a great deal of optimisation (perhaps more than any other game company on the planet) to ensure that gameplay is balanced and fair, both in a single and multi player context, etc.

Must I go on?

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 12 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[corebit]

Mecher3k wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Whatever your personal opinions may be about Blizzard and the style of games that they make (RTS, action-esque, MMO), you cannot deny that the games they release are of the absolute highest quality. All PERSONAL preferences aside.

Idiot alert, says you can not deny their games being of highest quality then say "All PERSONAL preferences aside."

Seriously? Then how can you say it's high quality then? Their stories suck which is a fact that even their fans have said, must I go on?

Story is a personal preference.
Many gamers don't care at all for story in their games.

Blizzard games are usually a lot less buggy and their UI and control are extremely polished when compared to their competition. Their gameplay is also very addictive.

[Boiny Bunny]

Mecher3k wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

lol - you do all realize blizzard COULD make a far better DA style game then Bioware right? Easily. They simply choose not too and I don't blame them.

lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

*sigh* I didn't realise I was dealing with a child.  Ah well.

Believe what you will.

The fact is, utterly regardless of whether you dislike Blizzard games or think that they are low quality, they all sell 12m+ copies, making them one of the most successful game developers ever to exist.  Certainly the most successful PC exclusive developer ever to exist - which is no mean feat when you consider the fact that consoles represent the majority of the games market by a significant amount nowadays, and yet, Blizzard still outsell Bioware's top selling game 4 - 1 with every title they release.

[Mecher3k]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

When I say quality, I am referring to the level of polish in the overall product

Still dependent on the person, thus your words make what you said pointless.

Modifié par Mecher3k, 12 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[Mecher3k]

Boiny Bunny wrote...


The fact is, utterly regardless of whether you dislike Blizzard games or think that they are low quality, they all sell 12m+ copies,

So now you reverting to the "they sell a lot of games so they must be good" argument? You do realize that is a logical fallacy, right?

Modifié par Mecher3k, 12 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Mecher3k wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

When I say quality, I am referring to the level of polish in the overall product

Still dependent on the person, thus your words make what you said pointless.

Overall polish (lack of bugs, ease of UI, etc) can be objectively measured. Blizzard have a typically excellent record in this area.

Bioware does too (for an RPG developer), but latter products dint the record.

Mecher3k wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...


The
fact is, utterly regardless of whether you dislike Blizzard games or
think that they are low quality, they all sell 12m+ copies,

So
now you reverting to the "they sell a lot of games so they must be
good" argument? You do realize that is a logical fallacy, right?

It's the same logical fallacy Bioware adhered to when making DA 2...

Modifié par mrcrusty, 12 avril 2011 - 04:38 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Mecher3k wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

When I say quality, I am referring to the level of polish in the overall product

Still dependent on the person, thus your words make what yo said pointless.

Did you read the rest of the post following that, explaining what I mean by overall level of polish?

Because none of the things I listed are in any way subjective.

You may personally define overall quality in any way you wish.  But seeing as I am the one who used the word in my original post, I will be defining the context in which I meant it - when I say 'quality' I am referring to something that is not subjective in any way.

For example, the Mona Lisa is not a low quality painting.  You might not like it personally, you might think it is of unrealistic proportions, ugly, not like the painting style, etc.  But it is not a low quality painting.  

I'm sorry if you cannot understand this - it's a higher level thought process - being able to distinguish quality from subjectivity.

I didn't like the plot in Wings of Liberty at all.  I think there are hundreds of things they could have done with the plot that would have made the game better.  That doesn't mean it is a low quality product, by any stretch of the imagination.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 12 avril 2011 - 04:40 .

[Euno17]

I agree with you two whole-heartily.

Blizzard games in terms of story aren't the greatest BUT they are well polished games that adhere to their standard of excellent. I still remember SC: Ghost and I was hoping to play it when I heard they stopped development on it.

I think if Blizzard 'wanted' to invest more into story-based rpgs - they could do it due to the fact that they are so dedicated (and willing to spend the time) in their craft/profession. They just choose not to.

[devSin]

They're not owned by Activision and operate independently of it (even though both have the same parent company). They also publish the games themselves (they develop, distribute, and support their games in-house), and everything they've done has been wildly successful, enough so that they can just do what they want without having the giant conglomerate that owns them really interfere (it does maintain at least some control, however, evidenced when most the Blizzard North leadership made epic fail by submitting their resignations to try to wrest more freedom from the parent company, only to have the resignations accepted and the studio shuttered).

If Bungie had remained viable a bit longer, they may have reached Blizzard status (though they were entirely private, self-owned, whereas Blizzard has never really been independent). BioWare, though, has always relied on a publisher. Both to fund their continued operation (through royalty advances) and to handle marketing, distribution, and support. They may have some amount of debt (Interplay shafted them for some of the Baldur's Gate royalties, Origins was mostly self-funded, and LucasArts can't have been giving them sufficient advances for the entire time TOR has been in progress), and they're probably not set up to be able to operate independently from the EA publishing framework.

But the difference may just be that they're owned by a video game publisher instead of a giant media concern: the giant corporation doesn't exercise direct control, because it doesn't specialize in any of these areas (it just needs to see enough money coming in before it rubber-stamps operations). EA does specialize in this area, so they can't resist sticking their fingers in and messing things up.

But as has been pointed out here, Blizzard writing is pretty terribad (entertaining, but painful). I know they had Leonard Boyarsky doing Diablo III, but they'd still have to poach some Davids and Lukes if they wanted to do a BioWare-style RPG and be taken seriously.

Modifié par devSin, 12 avril 2011 - 04:59 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Actually, just to clear this absolute nonsense about Blizzard and Activision up once and for all, READ THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi

Vivendi are a HUGE company, and ONE of their MANY divisions is video games. This was known as 'Vivendi Games', and Blizzard was one part of Vivendi Games.

Their entire games division merged with Activision - resulting in 'Vivendi Games' being replaced entirely by 'Blizzard Activision' (the titles of the two biggest companies in the newly merged games division). Vivendi owns 52% of Blizzard Activision.

Blizzard are not in any way, not even 1%, owned by Activision. Nor vice versa. In fact, the two companies are left to operate in virtual isolation, with virtually no supervision in their direct business activities from their Vivendi overlords.


Also, Bungie may well be on their way to Blizzard status.  Now having actually managed to de-merge with Microsoft and become a completely independent company (this alone is a miracle - all that they lost is the intellectual property rights to Halo), they are in an incredibly strong position to do whatever they like.

Interestingly they have entered a publishing agreement with Activision for their 'next big franchise' - which will span 10 years.  HOWEVER, unlike all other publishing agreements, Bungie will retain 100% of their intellectual property.  So when all is said and done, if they wish to continue with the series after the 10 year period (whatever it may be), they can, and Activision cannot.

All that needs to be seen is whether or not they are capable of another game as popular as Halo...

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 12 avril 2011 - 05:10 .

[Boiny Bunny]

EDIT: Double Post

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 12 avril 2011 - 05:10 .

[Tigerman123]

You mean that it should be ugly and derivative of previous titles ala WoW, Diablo 2 and Starcraft 2 :innocent:

Modifié par Tigerman123, 12 avril 2011 - 05:18 .

[corebit]

devSin wrote...

They're not owned by Activision and operate independently of it (even though both have the same parent company). They also publish the games themselves (they develop, distribute, and support their games in-house), and everything they've done has been wildly successful, enough so that they can just do what they want without having the giant conglomerate that owns them really interfere (it does maintain at least some control, however, evidenced when most the Blizzard North leadership made epic fail by submitting their resignations to try to wrest more freedom from the parent company, only to have the resignations accepted and the studio shuttered).

If Bungie had remained viable a bit longer, they may have reached Blizzard status (though they were entirely private, self-owned, whereas Blizzard has never really been independent). BioWare, though, has always relied on a publisher. Both to fund their continued operation (through royalty advances) and to handle marketing, distribution, and support. They may have some amount of debt (Interplay shafted them for some of the Baldur's Gate royalties, Origins was mostly self-funded, and LucasArts can't have been giving them sufficient advances for the entire time TOR has been in progress), and they're probably not set up to be able to operate independently from the EA publishing framework.

But the difference may just be that they're owned by a video game publisher instead of a giant media concern: the giant corporation doesn't exercise direct control, because it doesn't specialize in any of these areas (it just needs to see enough money coming in before it rubber-stamps operations). EA does specialize in this area, so they can't resist sticking their fingers in and messing things up.

But as has been pointed out here, Blizzard writing is pretty terribad (entertaining, but painful). I know they had Leonard Boyarsky doing Diablo III, but they'd still have to poach some Davids and Lukes if they wanted to do a BioWare-style RPG and be taken seriously.

Thanks a lot for your analysis. It is very unfortunate that Bioware doesn't enjoy the same level of freedom that Blizzard does.

[wowpwnslol]

Mecher3k wrote...
lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

Ironic coming from someone using internet lingo like "lol" and not knowing the difference between "than" and "then" to accuse someone of lacking braincells. Another 12 year old keyboard warrior, posting from his mom's laptop, as if the forum lacked those.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 12 avril 2011 - 05:40 .

[Mecher3k]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...
lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

Ironic coming from someone using internet lingo like "lol" and not knowing the difference between "than" and "then" to accuse someone of lacking braincells. Another 12 year old keyboard warrior, posting from his mom's laptop, as if the forum lacked those.

Uh.... Have you forgotten what your name is or do you just like owning yourself?

[wowpwnslol]

Mecher3k wrote...


Uh.... Have you forgotten what your name is or do you just like owning yourself?

The name is clearly sarcastic in nature, but naturally it would fly right by a knuckle dragger like yourself.

[Boiny Bunny]

Mecher3k wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...
lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

Ironic coming from someone using internet lingo like "lol" and not knowing the difference between "than" and "then" to accuse someone of lacking braincells. Another 12 year old keyboard warrior, posting from his mom's laptop, as if the forum lacked those.

Uh.... Have you forgotten what your name is or do you just like owning yourself?

I believe that the name is a not-so-subtle dig at those, such as yourself, who use such language.

[Icinix]

I suppose the thing is..Blizzard wouldn't have messed with the game mechanics. They would have just bumped the story and upped the graphics.

You know..like Diablo 2 and soon 3..StarCraft 2..etc.

However..I would have preferred BioWare to take what they innovated, keep the theme...and added about 12 months in the overn to bake that sucker properly.

Edit: Oh..Blizzards approach is by no means bad..in fact I'm a huge fan.  Just thought I should clarify that because it may have come across a bit angsty.

Modifié par Icinix, 12 avril 2011 - 09:05 .

[Mecher3k]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...
lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?

Ironic coming from someone using internet lingo like "lol" and not knowing the difference between "than" and "then" to accuse someone of lacking braincells. Another 12 year old keyboard warrior, posting from his mom's laptop, as if the forum lacked those.

Uh.... Have you forgotten what your name is or do you just like owning yourself?

I believe that the name is a not-so-subtle dig at those, such as yourself, who use such language.

Which I don't go "WOWOWNSLOL!!!!!"

So no.

[TeamVR]

devSin wrote...

But as has been pointed out here, Blizzard writing is pretty terribad (entertaining, but painful). I know they had Leonard Boyarsky doing Diablo III, but they'd still have to poach some Davids and Lukes if they wanted to do a BioWare-style RPG and be taken seriously.

See, the thing is, any decision Blizzard makes is undoubtably by their own choice. If they wanted a complex, engaging story they would have it. Just as if they wanted complex gameplay they could have that as well. But Blizzard's philosophy has always been streamlined and simplistic, both in gameplay and storytelling.

Take an established formula and polish it to a blinding shine. Thats what they are known for, and that is what made them the success that they are today.

Which do you think is more possible? Blizzard spending the time and money to create a top notch story, or (current) Bioware spending extra time and money to deliver a solid product that their fans love and that isn't riddled with bugs? I think we both know the answer to that. Blizzard has proven time and time again that they can go into uncharted gaming territory and outperform companies that have been in that genre for years. 

If Blizzard wanted to make a Bioware style RPG, there is no doubt in my mind that they would make a stellar product because they will give the project the necessary time and resources to be successful. 

Modifié par TeamVR, 12 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[Euno17]

^This^

Modifié par Euno17, 12 avril 2011 - 02:54 .

[astreqwerty]

blizzard needed ten years to remake starcraft 1 with better graphics...and as far as the story is concerned it was all about a prophecy..nough said i guess.i want bioware to develop da 3 but i want them to deliver a truly epic game and take their time with it.a dev cycle of 4 or 5 years is not cosidered long..look at skyrim or witcher 2..these games are shaping up to be the most memorable rpgs of the year and they were in development for more than 3 years..da2 was produced in less than 1 year and a half and still it didnt suck so much..but it was so very mediocre

[TeamVR]

astreqwerty wrote...

blizzard needed ten years to remake starcraft 1 with better graphics...and as far as the story is concerned it was all about a prophecy..nough said i guess.

Development on the game, initially delayed for a year by the temporary reassignment of Blizzard's resources to World of Warcraft, began in 2003, shortly after Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne was released. According to Rob Pardo and Chris Sigaty, development for StarCraft II was put on hold for a year in 2005 due to the assistance needed for World of Warcraft.

link

Do the math

Also note that they spent over a year beta testing and bug squashing. 

Modifié par TeamVR, 12 avril 2011 - 03:02 .