I played over 200 games of SC2 and never had substantial problems with lag. Granted, I'm not a tournament caliber player, but I was in the Diamond league for a short amount of time before I stopped playing all that much. Sure, it hurts tournaments, but D3 isn't designed to be an E-sport. WoW is played only online and people are still able to play competitively in the arena. And really, the mass pirating of games caused Blizzard's decision to not allow LAN, as plenty of people played their previous games only through LAN with a friend using the same copy. Which is fun for the user, but I know plenty of people who would have bought D2 or SC1 but didn't because they could just play with friends through LAN. If you think its reasonable for them to not operate at a loss, then its also reasonable for them to try to cut down on people playing their game for free. And its not like things like lack of LAN makes the games "shoddy."
It costs millions upon millions of dollars to make a game in the first place. As the CEO of Activision said during the conference call, the industry is becoming "blockbuster or bust." In order to be profitable, companies are forced to do things like cut out LAN and other features in single player, so that they know you have a legit copy when you're using all their features. I'm sure the people who pour years of their time into a game are just as passionate, if not more passionate, about video games as you and I, but in the end you have to have to make a profitable game after those years of development and money spent. And theres no way that you'd pass up doubling your profits by making it so that people who want to play your game actually have to pay for it.
If you just have a problem with capitalism, fine, but don't try to turn that into a problem with the video game industry, specifically Blizzard, being corrupt.
It's saying something old is better just because it's old.
People say the same thing about Hollywood and comics. It isn't just that - creative mediums sometimes have really great stuff when they attract innovators and pioneers, and often become stale and predictable when they become just another business. People are also often more imaginative when technology is more limited. But, sure, nostalgia often plays a part.
That's the theory, Don, the reality is that most big corporations are structured in a way to let the executives extract as much value as possible, with the investors and customers being strictly secondary in the equation.
If you have problems with the products of Blizzard and Valve, you probably have a problem with gaming in general.
[...]
I understand that some people just liked the games from 10 years ago more than the games now, but I don't see how you can try to say that its anything close to a universal opinion.
I do. I thought it was obvious but I guess I didn't say it so openly: yes, I have a problem with gaming in general.
I do not understand how can one have your point of view. Obviously my opinion is not universal. But even with what you said, I cannot understand your point of view. But you have the right to it.
Gaming business is a young one. During the 90's it was still very much in its infancy.
Businesses and markets are way different when they're in their early stages and when they become increasingly stable. Add to that the fact that game development costs have increased exponentially since the 90's (when a couple guys with coding knowledge could make world-changing games).
Thats very true, and that is a very big problem of gaming. The higher the costs for a game to even sell, the less quality games we'll have.
I understand that a lot of earlier games were shitty too, but there's no incentive to.. heck, there's not even room to do more. They waste so much money because of the graphical and technical demands that they can't take more risks than that. Maybe you can use that argument to take the blame off companies like Blizzard, but damn, do I wish it wasn't like that.
The chances for indie developers and smaller groups of people developing a successful game is so slim and is such a monetary suicide, because of reasons like this.
Hopefully things will change as gaming evolves, so that making a game would eventually be a less... overwhelming process. But if the technical qualities (graphics, etc) keep going up, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
That's the theory, Don, the reality is that most big corporations are structured in a way to let the executives extract as much value as possible, with the investors and customers being strictly secondary in the equation.
There's a fine line to keep both investors and customers happy, Gheed. In many cases (see EA) the investors are happy and the customers, not so much (with few releases as exceptions to the rule). Blizzard (not Activision) as a developer team is doing what's humanly possible to keep both sides happy (or less unhappy i should say?).
Judging by the overall quality of the games, i'd say they're doing a decent job.
That's the theory, Don, the reality is that most big corporations are structured in a way to let the executives extract as much value as possible, with the investors and customers being strictly secondary in the equation.
There's a fine line to keep both investors and customers happy, Gheed. In many cases (see EA) the investors are happy and the customers, not so much (with few releases as exceptions to the rule). Blizzard (not Activision) as a developer team is doing what's humanly possible to keep both sides happy (or less unhappy i should say?).
Judging by the overall quality of the games, i'd say they're doing a decent job.
They do a better job than EA, but that just means they know what they are doing a bit more. It doesn't mean their goals are different. EA keeps losing people and sales by doing bad moves, while Blizzard walks the line more finely and seems to be avoiding any major uproars.
You can say that makes their games of a higher quality than EA and I'd say thats true. Its still not quite what it should/could be.
That's the theory, Don, the reality is that most big corporations are structured in a way to let the executives extract as much value as possible, with the investors and customers being strictly secondary in the equation.
There's a fine line to keep both investors and customers happy, Gheed. In many cases (see EA) the investors are happy and the customers, not so much (with few releases as exceptions to the rule). Blizzard (not Activision) as a developer team is doing what's humanly possible to keep both sides happy (or less unhappy i should say?).
Judging by the overall quality of the games, i'd say they're doing a decent job.
They do a better job than EA, but that just means they know what they are doing a bit more. It doesn't mean their goals are different. EA keeps losing people and sales by doing bad moves, while Blizzard walks the line more finely and seems to be avoiding any major uproars.
You can say that makes their games of a higher quality than EA and I'd say thats true. Its still not quite what it should/could be.
What it should be? No, it's not and i fully agree. But what it should be, could only be in a perfect world. They already have relative creative freedom (i remember when Vivendi said that all games to come from Blizzard would be MMOs how Blizzard shut them up saying they planned to make single-player games aswell) and the freedom to push their deadlines back to make sure the quality of the games is high.
I do however think that with the current situation in the market, they're doing the best that can be done. I'm satisfied for now, but i expect better, too!
In many cases (see EA) the investors are happy and the customers, not so much (with few releases as exceptions to the rule).
Actually, you're making my point for me, EA lost 3/4 of their value a few years ago, and the CEO is richer than ever (after buying out developers owned by his own hedge fund that were shut down a couple of years later).
Well we all know the general structure of businesses favors the guys on top, but thats, once again, not exclusive to the video game industry. Even though there are games that are just bad and its unfortunate that those games make money, there are still plenty (in my opinion) of games that are more than worth playing, and I'm sure D3 will be the same.
I am going to derail this thread slightly and say that i would much rather Activision Blizzard then EA Blizzard. There are areas where Activision is absolutely soul-less and evil, yet to me they are a corporation trying to make good games using good developers to make a good amount of money. EA on the other hand take the philosophy of Lower-budget low-overhead costs and pump out games. StarWars: The Old Republic is their most expensive game and reportedly the only game that crossed a 50 million dollar budget threshold.
But the point is Activision doesn't make good games, and if you say Black ops is good I shall stab thee. It is bugged and unbalanced and retarded.
My friend perhaps you should go look up the definition of a publisher. Saying Activision made "Blacks Ops" is not only misleading it is also quite an ignorant statement. Treyarch is the name of the company that DEVELOPED "COD: Black Ops", Activision is a Publishing company. So your point is completely void as Activision do not make games.
What I was referring to was the corporate philosophy that drives Activision and EA. Activision likes to invest heavily into CORE franchises whereas EA is much more about the quantity of titles they publish (This can be proven by the fact the The Old Republic (Star Wars MMO) is their largest scale game ever (Bioware developing) costing in the ranges of 100 Million whereas Activision Blizzard have a history of dealing with large budgets)
If you look at the two philosophies it is clear that Activision is more "LIKELY" to publish better games.
TL ; DR Activision do not make games, they publish them and their corporate views and standpoints are more appealing to a gamer (such as myself) who enjoys quality rather than the quantity.
What is wrong with Albert Speer? Although he was the War minister near the end of the war, most accounts prove that he was largely uninvolved with the murders committed by the Nazi regime. His greatest sin (which is quite a large sin don't get me wrong) was using forced labor to build Hitler's dream city.
But the point is Activision doesn't make good games, and if you say Black ops is good I shall stab thee. It is bugged and unbalanced and retarded.
My friend perhaps you should go look up the definition of a publisher. Saying Activision made "Blacks Ops" is not only misleading it is also quite an ignorant statement. Treyarch is the name of the company that DEVELOPED "COD: Black Ops", Activision is a Publishing company. So your point is completely void as Activision do not make games.
What I was referring to was the corporate philosophy that drives Activision and EA. Activision likes to invest heavily into CORE franchises whereas EA is much more about the quantity of titles they publish (This can be proven by the fact the The Old Republic (Star Wars MMO) is their largest scale game ever (Bioware developing) costing in the ranges of 100 Million whereas Activision Blizzard have a history of dealing with large budgets)
If you look at the two philosophies it is clear that Activision is more "LIKELY" to publish better games.
TL ; DR Activision do not make games, they publish them and their corporate views and standpoints are more appealing to a gamer (such as myself) who enjoys quality rather than the quantity.
Sorry you are correct I know they are a publisher and don't make games yet they have creative control over their developers and when they see fit they will do anything to the franchise to "make it better" Treyarch has yet to release a good CoD game... So I am merely sayign by them bringing on this second developer for someone elses game ruined the game.
While they might have more money to pour into their games by no means does that mean they are a good publisher who publishes quality games. My point being, Battlefield, Dead Space, NFS, and more. Activision has Blizzard, sadly and CoD which isn't even a good game. So I believe Ea has a better idea of letting the developer do what they want, instead of milking everything from them for money and pure gain. Ea obviously wants money too but they don't make as much they don't use as much and i feel their "quality" games are far superior to anything activision released. The only exception to that statement being Blizzard games which really aren't involved with activision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I agree with everything except your analysis of the pro Starcraft 2 scene. The level of play in the SC2 scene has consistently increased since the start of the beta. Your complaints about death ball armies that just clash and die before the game abruptly ends is becoming obsolete pretty quickly, and this is not a consequence of any balance patches either.
The pure fact of the matter is that we can't evaluate whether or not SC2 or SC1 has more potential to be exciting because SC1 players are just so much better than SC2 players. The kind of amazing shit that Flash and Jaedong pull off is leagues beyond what even the greatest SC2 players have been able to achieve. The only way SC2 is gonna catch up is with more time for people to practice and figure it out.
Remember that some of the greatest things about SC1 were invented years after the game was release (and after an expansion pack). It's not like people were doing muta micro the day it came out.
Blizzard's sound department has lost its magic, that's for sure. That really worries me, it sucks all the atmosphere out of SCII because the sounds are meh.
Massification is the very reason why this is happening.
10 years ago the video game public was much smaller. People really cared to innovation, people really wanted to conquer a challenge, people demanded novel level plots, people had critical vision about games mechanics... The avarage video game player had a better taste.
Nowdays the majority of players thinks that "finish" the game is their right in the moment they bought the product and achievements are suppose to please the more dedicated audience. Also, they want over the topness everywhere. They are not "geek" enough to enjoy what old gamers enjoyed.
The companies aim a broader audiance. To achieve that, games are progressively dumbed down in all sort of ways. I don't blame anyone for this: companies are doing what they must do. Also this "new audience" can't be blamed for beign noobs.
Imo the proof of what i'm saying is that non popular genres keeps evolving. Fightning games, strategy, simulators, etc... Also the eastern crowd absorbed the old gamers values. This is the reason why eastern games maintain a challenging nature, not a carebear one.
Imo the "solution" is to stay away from most large companies and look for the avarage and specialized ones.
Lol I think that's just silly. It's saying something old is better just because it's old.
Anyway, we already know d3 has a lot of new features and that it's going to be a great game, it's not d2.5, it's a new game.
It costs millions upon millions of dollars to make a game in the first place. As the CEO of Activision said during the conference call, the industry is becoming "blockbuster or bust." In order to be profitable, companies are forced to do things like cut out LAN and other features in single player, so that they know you have a legit copy when you're using all their features. I'm sure the people who pour years of their time into a game are just as passionate, if not more passionate, about video games as you and I, but in the end you have to have to make a profitable game after those years of development and money spent. And theres no way that you'd pass up doubling your profits by making it so that people who want to play your game actually have to pay for it.
If you just have a problem with capitalism, fine, but don't try to turn that into a problem with the video game industry, specifically Blizzard, being corrupt.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
People say the same thing about Hollywood and comics. It isn't just that - creative mediums sometimes have really great stuff when they attract innovators and pioneers, and often become stale and predictable when they become just another business. People are also often more imaginative when technology is more limited. But, sure, nostalgia often plays a part.
I do. I thought it was obvious but I guess I didn't say it so openly: yes, I have a problem with gaming in general.
I do not understand how can one have your point of view. Obviously my opinion is not universal. But even with what you said, I cannot understand your point of view. But you have the right to it.
Thats very true, and that is a very big problem of gaming. The higher the costs for a game to even sell, the less quality games we'll have.
I understand that a lot of earlier games were shitty too, but there's no incentive to.. heck, there's not even room to do more. They waste so much money because of the graphical and technical demands that they can't take more risks than that. Maybe you can use that argument to take the blame off companies like Blizzard, but damn, do I wish it wasn't like that.
The chances for indie developers and smaller groups of people developing a successful game is so slim and is such a monetary suicide, because of reasons like this.
Hopefully things will change as gaming evolves, so that making a game would eventually be a less... overwhelming process. But if the technical qualities (graphics, etc) keep going up, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
There's a fine line to keep both investors and customers happy, Gheed. In many cases (see EA) the investors are happy and the customers, not so much (with few releases as exceptions to the rule). Blizzard (not Activision) as a developer team is doing what's humanly possible to keep both sides happy (or less unhappy i should say?).
Judging by the overall quality of the games, i'd say they're doing a decent job.
They do a better job than EA, but that just means they know what they are doing a bit more. It doesn't mean their goals are different. EA keeps losing people and sales by doing bad moves, while Blizzard walks the line more finely and seems to be avoiding any major uproars.
You can say that makes their games of a higher quality than EA and I'd say thats true. Its still not quite what it should/could be.
What it should be? No, it's not and i fully agree. But what it should be, could only be in a perfect world. They already have relative creative freedom (i remember when Vivendi said that all games to come from Blizzard would be MMOs how Blizzard shut them up saying they planned to make single-player games aswell) and the freedom to push their deadlines back to make sure the quality of the games is high.
I do however think that with the current situation in the market, they're doing the best that can be done. I'm satisfied for now, but i expect better, too!
Actually, you're making my point for me, EA lost 3/4 of their value a few years ago, and the CEO is richer than ever (after buying out developers owned by his own hedge fund that were shut down a couple of years later).
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
My friend perhaps you should go look up the definition of a publisher. Saying Activision made "Blacks Ops" is not only misleading it is also quite an ignorant statement. Treyarch is the name of the company that DEVELOPED "COD: Black Ops", Activision is a Publishing company. So your point is completely void as Activision do not make games.
What I was referring to was the corporate philosophy that drives Activision and EA. Activision likes to invest heavily into CORE franchises whereas EA is much more about the quantity of titles they publish (This can be proven by the fact the The Old Republic (Star Wars MMO) is their largest scale game ever (Bioware developing) costing in the ranges of 100 Million whereas Activision Blizzard have a history of dealing with large budgets)
If you look at the two philosophies it is clear that Activision is more "LIKELY" to publish better games.
TL ; DR Activision do not make games, they publish them and their corporate views and standpoints are more appealing to a gamer (such as myself) who enjoys quality rather than the quantity.
Sorry you are correct I know they are a publisher and don't make games yet they have creative control over their developers and when they see fit they will do anything to the franchise to "make it better" Treyarch has yet to release a good CoD game... So I am merely sayign by them bringing on this second developer for someone elses game ruined the game.
While they might have more money to pour into their games by no means does that mean they are a good publisher who publishes quality games. My point being, Battlefield, Dead Space, NFS, and more. Activision has Blizzard, sadly and CoD which isn't even a good game. So I believe Ea has a better idea of letting the developer do what they want, instead of milking everything from them for money and pure gain. Ea obviously wants money too but they don't make as much they don't use as much and i feel their "quality" games are far superior to anything activision released. The only exception to that statement being Blizzard games which really aren't involved with activision.
The pure fact of the matter is that we can't evaluate whether or not SC2 or SC1 has more potential to be exciting because SC1 players are just so much better than SC2 players. The kind of amazing shit that Flash and Jaedong pull off is leagues beyond what even the greatest SC2 players have been able to achieve. The only way SC2 is gonna catch up is with more time for people to practice and figure it out.
Remember that some of the greatest things about SC1 were invented years after the game was release (and after an expansion pack). It's not like people were doing muta micro the day it came out.
10 years ago the video game public was much smaller. People really cared to innovation, people really wanted to conquer a challenge, people demanded novel level plots, people had critical vision about games mechanics... The avarage video game player had a better taste.
Nowdays the majority of players thinks that "finish" the game is their right in the moment they bought the product and achievements are suppose to please the more dedicated audience. Also, they want over the topness everywhere. They are not "geek" enough to enjoy what old gamers enjoyed.
The companies aim a broader audiance. To achieve that, games are progressively dumbed down in all sort of ways. I don't blame anyone for this: companies are doing what they must do. Also this "new audience" can't be blamed for beign noobs.
Imo the proof of what i'm saying is that non popular genres keeps evolving. Fightning games, strategy, simulators, etc... Also the eastern crowd absorbed the old gamers values. This is the reason why eastern games maintain a challenging nature, not a carebear one.
Imo the "solution" is to stay away from most large companies and look for the avarage and specialized ones.