275 réponses à ce sujet

[Euno17]

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.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

Come on now. That's just hating on Blizzard. They did not spend ten years working on SC 2. They probably didn't even start working on the content for SC 2 till 07'. They probably started work on the engine in 03' with a few developers (remember the majority of the diablo/warcraft/starcraft teams were working on WoW at this time). They didn't have WoW as a cash cow yet. Sure the Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft franchises were pulling in good money but nothing like they do now.

[Fieryeel]

TeamVR wrote...

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. 

How long did Bioware spend on beta testing and bug squashing for DA2?

[Romantiq]

0 years 0 months 2 days

[FedericoV]

Fieryeel wrote...

What do you prefer?

DA2 being made by Bioware in control by EA with a development cycle of 18 months, getting streamlined, cut down, content re-used and being made shorter. But at least, you get your game fast.

Or DA2 being made by Blizzard with a development cycle of over 10 years, getting bigger, more epic and better but.............TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING!!! But at least, you get your game awesome.

Something in between. 3/5 years are long enough for a game (even too much imho).

In 10 years you can build a gothic Cathedral using medieval tech.

Waste of time for a videogame (at least, looking at the result in SC2 case).

Modifié par FedericoV, 12 avril 2011 - 03:27 .

[TeamVR]

FedericoV wrote...


Waste of time for a videogame (at least, looking at the result in SC2 case).

what is wrong with you people. just because they release a game 10 years later doesn't mean it took 10 years to make. damn

[FedericoV]

TeamVR wrote...

FedericoV wrote...


Waste of time for a videogame (at least, looking at the result in SC2 case).

what is wrong with you people. just because they release a game 10 years later doesn't mean it took 10 years to make. damn

Fine, you made a point. Let's say that it has taken 5 years for a graphical upgrade.

[TeamVR]

FedericoV wrote...

Fine, you made a point. Let's say that it has taken 5 years for a graphical upgrade.

I guess your right. If you ignore the entire singleplayer campaign, the battle.net overhaul, the beta testing etc

Also, let's pretend that the simple 'graphical upgrade' isn't an entirely new engine built inhouse from the ground up. The orignal wasn't 2d at all

Modifié par TeamVR, 12 avril 2011 - 04:10 .

[Chuvvy]

YEAH! I ****ING LOVE $20 MICRO DLC!

[FedericoV]

TeamVR wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Fine, you made a point. Let's say that it has taken 5 years for a graphical upgrade.

I guess your right. If you ignore the entire singleplayer campaign, the battle.net overhaul, the beta testing etc

Also, let's pretend that the simple 'graphical upgrade' isn't an entirely new engine built inhouse from the ground up. The orignal wasn't 2d at all

Fine, you made another point. 5 years for a graphical and technical upgrade and (the first chapter of) the SP campaing. But the game basic have just been tweaked here and there and it plays and feels mostly the same imho. Mind, the game is great and technically perfect. No one is questioning it. I'm simply saying that imho it's not worth all that time and effort it if you do not make something really new and exciting. SC2 it's not a new game. I don't get excited by new maps, better graphics and better funcionalities and polish alone. They are all important but not the main point.

I expected more from Blizzard. A redefinition of the RTS genre. Instead, it's just an upgrade. And I worry that I will have the same kind of disappointment from Diablo 3 that has been in production for what... 7 years?

Modifié par FedericoV, 12 avril 2011 - 04:25 .

[Fieryeel]

FedericoV wrote...
Fine, you made another point. 5 years for a graphical and technical upgrade and (the first chapter of) the SP campaing. But the game basic have just been tweaked here and there and it plays and feels mostly the same imho. Mind, the game is great and technically perfect. No one is questioning it. I'm simply saying that imho it's not worth all that time and effort it if you do not make something really new and exciting. SC2 it's not a new game. I don't get excited by new maps, better graphics and better funcionalities and polish alone. They are all important but not the main point.

I expected more from Blizzard. A redefinition of the RTS genre. Instead, it's just an upgrade. And I worry that I will have the same kind of disappointment from Diablo 3 that has been in production for what... 7 years?

Blizzard knows that if they changed the system and gameplay of SC2, the Koreans would murder them.

Bioware did not understand it

[TeamVR]

I expected more from Blizzard. A redefinition of the RTS genre. Instead, it's just an upgrade. And I worry that I will have the same kind of disappointment from Diablo 3 that has been in production for what... 7 years?

Why would you expect something from blizzard that they have never EVER done?

When has Blizzard ever redefined a genre? The most original thing to come out of Blizzard is probably Lost Vikings

Blizzard builds upon existing standard to make a solid game. Providing a product that is more stable, polished and enjoyable than the competition. Stop me when I name an original, genre redifining product: Warcraft? Diablo? World of warcraft? Starcraft? The only thing Blizzard redifines is quality. 

And if your expecing Diablo 3 to be some massively original product, let me predict the future for you: it wont

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

[FedericoV]

TeamVR wrote...

I expected more from Blizzard. A redefinition of the RTS genre. Instead, it's just an upgrade. And I worry that I will have the same kind of disappointment from Diablo 3 that has been in production for what... 7 years?

Why would you expect something from blizzard that they have never EVER done?

When has Blizzard ever redefined a genre? The most original thing to coem out of Blizzard is probably Lost Vikings

Imho, SC, Diablo II and WoW are the very example of "redefinition of the genre". Yep, it's an evolution, not a revolution. Still, something that has made history and signed the course of RPG, RTS and MMO games. At the end, I can respect the fact that they do not want to try something new anymore and just milk their allready big fanbase that simply asks more of the same and it's very happy to be sucked dry in terms of money and life.

What I do not get it's all the hype and time for the milking process, like a Blizzard game it's the second coming.

Modifié par FedericoV, 12 avril 2011 - 04:37 .

[Dark83]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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.

Management that lets their creative staff be creative? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]
Did they replace their pointy-haired boss with a puppet or something?

[daemon1129]

Blizzard games are just that much better than other over hyped AAA titles. It might not be as revolutionary as they used to be, and there are other companies that makes great games that changes the genre or even gaming in general, but they all lack what Blizzard's games have, quality. Bash all you want out Blizzard but they still care about making games work for everyone. Bioware on the other hand have something other companies do not have that make their games special. But to be honest, I think they are a bit sub par on other areas.

Blizzard makes games that can be played for years and years and so they have lots of play to make sequels for them. When people have to wait 5+ years for a sequel, they get very excited. No one go play a Blizzard game a few days after release and start talking about what they can do in the sequel, because they know they will patch the game forever. Look at DA2, people been talking about DA3 already, and some even stop playing the game altogether.

[Dark83]

FedericoV wrote...

Imho, SC, Diablo II and WoW are the very example of "redefinition of the genre". Yep, it's an evolution, not a revolution. Still, something that has made history and signed the course of RPG, RTS and MMO games.

SC and WoW raised the bar for their respective genres, but didn't "redefine" or change anything.

Diablo, on the otherhand, was a brand new genre and very very very annoyingly called itself an RPG. (Thus leading to the dilution and obfuscation of the label such that an "RPG" nowadays doesn't really convey any real information. ...but I digress.) Diablo was made by another company which Blizzard acquired, renaming it Blizzard North, which also made Diablo 2.
Blizzard/Interplay (Interplay <3) also made the first Warcraft. While it was not the first RTS, it was the first to promote multiplayer - so it did redefine the genre in that case.

[-Semper-]

Dark83 wrote...

Interplay <3

since that moron hervè there's absolutely no love for interfail.

[Dark83]

Huh, I didn't know Interplay was still around after Hervè. I never noticed they came back.

Edit: I remember them for Wasteland, Bard's Tale, Fallout, MDK, Descent, Baldur's Gate, not whatever crap happened when Fargo got forced out.

Modifié par Dark83, 12 avril 2011 - 06:01 .

[JesterPsychotica]

Blizzard makes games with solid gameplay, I will give them that. However, their stories are boring, characters are forgettable and character design is obviously created by testosterone laden neanderthals. The areas/zones are attractive, though, I will say.

Personally, I would sacrifice gameplay over story. But its a delicate balance to make every gamer satisfied.

[dfstone]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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...

Bungie, no way.  That company sold its soul once it was bought  by Microsoft.  Bungie was never better then when they made the Marathon games.  That series had one of the best story lines of any FPS game ever.  And once Microsoft got their claws in them they gutted it.

[astreqwerty]

blizzard did absolutely nothing with starcraft 2 yet the whole universe praised them once again..i grow tired of having my intelligence insulted every time blizzard releases a new game.and dont get me as a hating fanboy.starcraft 1 is one of my favourite rts.i simply expected a lot more with sc2 and all i got was literally starcraft 1 with better graphics and such a stupid excuse of a campain/sory which my 4 years old sister could have written with more imagination.i mean ok dont fix whats broken (about the gameplay) but at least try to introduce something new try to reinvent yourself push the genre forward in a way.blizzard didnt go there and choose to play safe..
i guess thats ok for some people but i just lost faith on them(and they had both the resources and the ample time to create something unique)..bioware had none of this while developing da2 and yet they risked so much and though they came up with a completely disjointed and badly executed script that was however unique and innovative very intelligent and also touched some very sensitive subjects..and thats exactly why i still respect bioware.in their limited time frame and budget they managed to preserve their dignity while releasing a whorth purchasing product.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Romantiq wrote...

0 years 0 months 2 days

You forgot the twelve minutes and thirty-two seconds, which was mostly spent ordering take out for the office and in brief denial that the shinola of hype around DA 2 might not withstand the test of time (one month later).

[Lestatman]

Having played WOW for 3 years I constantly bugged Blizzard about making a version of WOW for the consoles. To their credit they have been looking at ways of trying to do for years but looks likely it'll never happen.

So yes having enjoyed WOW for 3 years I think Blizzard would do a good job on it.

[Kaiser Shepard]

God no, not Blizzard. Might as well let Bethesda handle the series if you're that willing to get a game with no substance.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 13 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[Embargoed]

No thanks. I'd prefer to have a good story in my games.

Also, Blizzard makes good RTS games. That's about it. WoW ain't all that great and I certainly won't be looking forward to their Titan MMO or whatever.

[Hatchetman77]

Fieryeel wrote...

But then if Blizzard made it, we would be too addicted to its gameplay to be raging on the forums!

Someone's never been to the Blizzard forums...