That was the same way with me. My neighbor and his grandson were avid Warcraft fans, so I decided to try it and was completely disappointed in it, thinking it was just wasting time that Blizzard could be using to work on D3. Ha. Whatever though. The time has come, and I just can't wait until it arrives.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hey guys...don't you ever just...fall over...cuz ya know...the world is moving...and you're standing still?"
What I was trying to say is that these games could have easily been released earlier... like, 2-3 years earlier... Diablo III needs to provide a huge amount of content to counter for the amount of time they spent on it, and StarCraft II so far shows absolutely nothing that wasn't there in StarCraft I. If you ask me, they've been dragging their time since WarCraft III, if not StarCraft I.
A lot of people are overexcited about Diablo III, and many still cling to the whole "Blizzard makes great games" idea, I'm not sure how true that is anymore, not after WoW, and not with how much time they take while deleting features instead of adding them. We need to remember that Diablo II has been done quite a while ago.
I guess you have something against WoW?
I know I do, but WoW isn't a piece of crap either. You can say what you want, I see a lot in WoW that proves Blizzard are not idiots, and they are one of the best game makers out there. Its far from perfect, but you'd hope they will learn from that in their future game - thats Diablo 3.
Deleting features is never nice, and I don't agree, but you have to get over that as well. I hate to admit it myself, but a game's development just never completes itself without sacrifices. We are just made aware of these, and that makes it more painful.
I personally think D3 has a lot of potential to be a lot of fun already. SC2? Not so much. I see absolutely -nothing- there I'm looking forward too much, except "more starcraft". But D3 is doing well.
You also can't just go around and say "Diablo 3 MUST have a LOT of content because of the time you waited". It hasn't been in full production all this time, you have no idea how much thats worth and you shouldn't give yourself such high expectation. You are only going to be disappointed.
My big point though, is that most gaming company sucks big time these days. If you actually look around you and the games around these days... Blizzard still seems to old a level of quality above them and think more about making good games than just siphoning money (and yes, I know WoW is giving them a load, but thats one game).
They may not deserve people blindly praising their game making skills, you got the right to be skeptical about all this, but I'm confident that they can give us something truly good, though they are far from anything revolutionary.
I am in total agreement with SFJake here. They surely haven't been in full production of Diablo 3 for the last 6 years, its been talked about, thought about, and looked at. If they wanted Diablo 3 to be out earlier, it would have been out by now, but they had other priorities for a new type of game to their company (WoW as an MMO). To be honest, while I am not a big MMO fan (as I discovered only after having a lvl 80 DK decked out with Naxx 25 tank gear), I do think there is a lot to love about WoW if MMOs are your kind of game. Sure they have had some balance issues, but they were new to MMOs, and its coming along quite nicely if you ask me.
As far as this whole "Nothing new in Starcraft 2" crap is rediculous. What exactly did you expect? They have come up with a LOT of new concepts for different units and upgrades. Never once in SC1 do I recall there being a drop pod system. How about the ability to get resources faster (with things such as the MULEs and Dark Pylons)? Limited high resource mineral fields to ACTUALLY give you something on the field worth fighting over. Destructables? Units capable of scaling ledges without a dropship? Warp-ins? There are a TON of new things for the basic game alone, and the campaign is TOTALLY revamped now. Have you even watched any of the SC2 panels from Blizzcon 08 or are you just guessing? Not to mention they are adding on to the story line, something I have been DYING to know more about since I finished Brood War. As it stands now, SC2 looks like its going to be a major success.
And SFJake makes a very good point, how many damned good gaming companies are still around? I rented TONS of console games this summer from Blockbuster (since they have that deal where you can rent games and swap them out before their due, not to mention you can cheat their services and keep games an extra week) and I have been completely floored at how bad video games are becoming. Ghostbusters: such a brilliant game to create now that they have the proper tech for it, and they couldn't even fix half of the stupid bugs. Half the game is WAY too easy until you get the final level and then its just WHOA. Then you come to the last boss and he is piss poor simple. Rainbow 6 Vegas? That game didn't stay in my house for more than 2 days. I mainly rented it because it looked cool and it had coop (I play a lot with my friends). The coop was so piss poor shitty: you don't even get the story in coop mode its just you killing people... Force Unleashed? Its as if they didn't even test half of that game... The only two games I have played this summer that were anywhere near worth it have been Gears 2 and Prototype... I remember the days where a good number of good games existed, now half of those games that still exist have been changed so much its not even fun anymore. Blizzard is one of the last few gaming companies in existance that still bring hope of good games for this generation. I'm not even sure if I am excited about the games that we will see in the next decade when I look at the crap thats coming out any more...
That being said, let Blizzard make their damn games and be happy that Blizzard is even still around! Out of my two favorite gaming companies from my childhood (Blizzard and Bullfrog), only one of them still exists to even make good games, and I am very grateful for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
After reading the previous two posts, I sympathize with the less patient part of the community and have decided to summarize my post. Three walls of text in a row is enough to drive a man mad. Here goes:
I know I do, but WoW isn't a piece of crap either. You can say what you want, I see a lot in WoW that proves Blizzard are not idiots, and they are one of the best game makers out there. Its far from perfect, but you'd hope they will learn from that in their future game - thats Diablo 3.
Let's say I consider MMOG's such as EVE, EQII, Asheron's Call, even WAR and a bunch of others much better than WoW in many respects, and WoW does not at all follow the typical Blizzard policy of best games on the market. Below average is the grade I feel it deserves. DI-DII, the hack&slashes are very hard to beat. StarCraft, same, most balanced RTS around. WarCraft III, on the other hand, wasn't bothered with. How often do you hear complaints that it's unbalanced? WoW is just a MMOG, and one I did not enjoy, whereas I enjoyed, to some extent or other, the former Blizzard games (even WCIII when I closed my eyes on the fact that it's called WarCraft). It felt empty and bland and I felt it was closer to a Sims / Second Life game (high popularity little sense) than to Blizzard quality.
Quote from "SFJake" »
Deleting features is never nice, and I don't agree, but you have to get over that as well.
Blizzard or not, I evaluate games before I buy them. I also evaluate the company's attitude. If that combination doesn't appeal to me, I'm not buying the game. That's pretty much it. I have nothing to get over, I can just turn to something else. Unlike most people here, I'm not a crazy Diablo fan and can get over another broken promise just as I got over the "WarCraft" III.
Quote from "SFJake" »
SC2? Not so much. I see absolutely -nothing- there I'm looking forward too much, except "more starcraft".
I find that very suspicious.
Quote from "SFJake" »
It hasn't been in full production all this time
That's the conclusion I arrived at. They really haven't been developing it that much and they're going to start doing it when they're closer to release because they actually don't need that much time to develop it.
Quote from "SFJake" »
My big point though, is that most gaming company sucks big time these days. If you actually look around you and the games around these days... Blizzard still seems to old a level of quality above them and think more about making good games than just siphoning money (and yes, I know WoW is giving them a load, but thats one game).
Well, you see, I feel WCIII and WoW are not exactly Blizzard products as we know them anymore.
WELL...i sure think that all of you who believe that completion is 50% and below...YOU ARE WAY WRONG!!! Just look at the 20 min. gameplay footage..its pretty close to being done.. Maybe not this year...but def. not anywhere close to 2011! Its been in production for the better part of 5 years now...blizzard is just holding back alot to unload the info all at one time so we have something to look forward to in our busy lives!
I am not a big fan of World of Warcraft. I played it for a while, it was a lot of fun when I did, but MMOs just aren't really my thing.
How can you honestly say that WoW is below average? Or a bad game? Are you kidding me?
Why is it crushing all of the other MMOs then? Why do so many people play it? Why have those people played it for such a long period of time?
There is a reason that the game is so huge, because it is probably the greatest game of it's genre ever created. All of the 'hardcore gamers' can pick it apart, they can say it isn't the best, but in the end the masses disagree with you and that is all Blizzard cares about.
Blizzard is in the business to make great games and through making great games, make a ton of money. Would a 'bad game' really have the success that World of Warcraft has had over such a long period of time? No.
I pretty much agree with Equinox, although to be fair Warcraft 3 was an amazing game because of how easy it was to mod. The game itself, I'll agree, was just a dime in a dozen.
Eh. Simple mods will not fix a bad game, and major mods can usually be replaced by better games in the same area... I think Demigod was made to replace DotA or something. I don't really mind WCIII that much, standalone. It's the WoW that bothers me.
Quote from "Ivaron" »
9.116 posts say otherwise.. Now I now you're probably here for the people on the forums or whatever, but it still seems a bit curious.
I've been here before Diablo III was announced, and I will be here if Diablo III flunks, in fact, given the condition of the forum during DIII's announcement, if DIII succeeds I'll probably have to leave. But for now, this is my home, and Diablo has little to do with it.
I am not a big fan of World of Warcraft. I played it for a while, it was a lot of fun when I did, but MMOs just aren't really my thing.
How can you honestly say that WoW is below average? Or a bad game? Are you kidding me?
Why is it crushing all of the other MMOs then? Why do so many people play it? Why have those people played it for such a long period of time?
There is a reason that the game is so huge, because it is probably the greatest game of it's genre ever created. All of the 'hardcore gamers' can pick it apart, they can say it isn't the best, but in the end the masses disagree with you and that is all Blizzard cares about.
Blizzard is in the business to make great games and through making great games, make a ton of money. Would a 'bad game' really have the success that World of Warcraft has had over such a long period of time? No.
Halo is below average yet is one of the most popular shooter. That doesn't mean anything. Just mean a good portion of its player base are ignorant of anything better, as in they are literally fed these games as if they were the only ones good.
Not saying anything against WoW here, but just saying popularity does not make something good, and in some case just mean it was wonderfully advertised.
I HOPE FOR
200% ... Soon enought (100% bonus is for the expansion). Hehe.
MAYBE?
But seriously, if they are so good at secrets, why not have it like.. 98%? Adding stuff and ideas for the expansion to make great "bridge" between them?
Good PR campaign? Diablo II did not crush all RPG's. StarCraft did not crush all RTS. The most popular games (not just popular, but MOST popular) tend to suck. The only way you can sell a game to such a huge amount of players is by dumbing it down and making it so that every person on the globe can play it, which means everyone with the average intelligence, philosphy, and skill. This doesn't say anything good about WoW in my opinion, not at all. EVE is a much better done game in every single way but it only has 300,000 subscribers, because it takes brains to play, and not everyone can handle it. Unlike WoW. Unfortunately, everyone being able to handle it transforms into a super-dumb simplistic game with an idiotic community. I can enjoy WoW but only as a pushover and never with a monthly fee.
Never, in my life, will you see me judging a game's quality over how many people play it. Not someone who is a fan of games most people aren't even aware of.
Quote from "Phrayed" »
but in the end the masses disagree with you and that is all Blizzard cares about.
That, I fear, and if that is so, DIII will suck, and Blizzard will lose its title as the creator of great games, because that title is defined by people who play a game for 10 years, not the casual WoW subscriber. The true measure of a game's quality is not how many people play it when it's supported, it's how many people still love it when the hype is gone.
Quote from "Phrayed" »
Would a 'bad game' really have the success that World of Warcraft has had over such a long period of time? No.
I am glad you think Sims is the best game ever created, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
Halo is below average yet is one of the most popular shooter. That doesn't mean anything. Just mean a good portion of its player base are ignorant of anything better, as in they are literally fed these games as if they were the only ones good.
Not saying anything against WoW here, but just saying popularity does not make something good, and in some case just mean it was wonderfully advertised.
It is below average why? Because you say so? How do you evaluate how 'good' a game is other than sales and the amount of people playing it? It's like saying Titanic wasn't a good movie, even though it crushed every other movie at the box office. You might not be a fan of it, but it was good and the numbers prove it.
All of those people that you talk about would disagree with you. Will you find a lot more people out there that like Halo as opposed to not liking it.
World of Warcraft has earned game of the year honors and has a massive, dedicated, cult like following behind it that has made Blizzards millions upon millions of dollars. It isn't just proven by how many people purchased the game, but how many people continue to play it.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Good PR campaign? Diablo II did not crush all RPG's. StarCraft did not crush all RTS. The most popular games (not just popular, but MOST popular) tend to suck. The only way you can sell a game to such a huge amount of players is by dumbing it down and making it so that every person on the globe can play it, which means everyone with the average intelligence, philosphy, and skill. This doesn't say anything good about WoW in my opinion, not at all. EVE is a much better done game in every single way but it only has 300,000 subscribers, because it takes brains to play, and not everyone can handle it. Unlike WoW. Unfortunately, everyone being able to handle it transforms into a super-dumb simplistic game with an idiotic community. I can enjoy WoW but only as a pushover and never with a monthly fee.
Every company in the world would take that 'idiotic community' over you any day.
Games are not better just because you say that they are.
Yeah, Diablo 2 didn't "crush" the competition, it only won game of the year? Diablo 2 (and Starcraft) are still played by a massive amount of people, much like WoW.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Never, in my life, will you see me judging a game's quality over how many people play it. Not someone who is a fan of games most people aren't even aware of.
That, I fear, and if that is so, DIII will suck, and Blizzard will lose its title as the creator of great games, because that title is defined by people who play a game for 10 years, not the casual WoW subscriber. The true measure of a game's quality is not how many people play it when it's supported, it's how many people still love it when the hype is gone.
So if millions of people think that Diablo 3 is great or for that matter that WoW is great, you think that your opinion will somehow remove the title of 'great game maker' from Blizzard? How many people do you think that you influence?
All of those people that you talk about would disagree with you. Will you find a lot more people out there that like Halo as opposed to not liking it.
Most people in Germany loved Hitler.
Most people in USSR loved Stalin.
Most peopel are stupid.
Most people are racist.
Most do not have an education.
Quote from "Phrayed" »
Every company in the world would take that 'idiotic community' over you any day.
StarDock and CCP totally would. /sarcasm
Quote from "Phrayed" »
Games are not better just because you say that they are.
For me, personally, what I say is the only thing that matters. I didn't lose my individuality yet, I can actually judge a game by how much I like it not by how many people bought it and think like "if most people like it I must be wrong". I'd fail the Asch's Conformity test. >>
Quote from "Phrayed" »
Yeah, Diablo 2 didn't "crush" the competition, it only won game of the year?
A lot of games win game of the year, take Oblivion. It wasn't best-selling. It wasn't a huge cash cow or anything.
Quote from "Phrayed" »
Diablo 2 (and Starcraft) are still played by a massive amount of people, much like WoW.
Bad comparison. D2 and SC are not supported. WoW is. WoW's playerbase would dissipate the moment Blizzard stops supporting it if they keep the monthly fee. It's a temporary game. Not to mention that MMO's are hard to support, and Blizzard is making a second one. The amount of loyal players WoW has is very low compared to D2 or SC, especially if you exclude PServers.
Quote from "Phrayed" »
So if millions of people think that Diablo 3 is great or for that matter that WoW is great, you think that your opinion will somehow remove the title of 'great game maker' from Blizzard? How many people do you think that you influence?
Not just mine. That of loyal players. I just happen to be one of them. Only people who's opinions are their own matter here. If hardcore players won't like DIII Blizzard will have the same title as EA does. The maker of random popular games.
Not among sheep, of course, just among people who understand what is quality and what is hype.
If Blizzard released EQ2 instead of WoW it would be just as popular.
It is below average why? Because you say so? How do you evaluate how 'good' a game is other than sales and the amount of people playing it? It's like saying Titanic wasn't a good movie, even though it crushed every other movie at the box office. You might not be a fan of it, but it was good and the numbers prove it.
I didn't mean to say it as a fact, that was my opinion, yours does not make it more true just because you base it on numbers, it is merely more "popular".
I'm just trying to show the difference. Popular does not mean better. Its just more popular. The end. Its in absolutely no way better because of its sales, and no, you can't use these numbers to support how a game is "better" or not.
There are no proof, there is no way to know what is better because its entirely subjective, thus this whole discussion is silly, but you did say that WoW was NOT a below average game, which you cannot know.
Equinox brought some good points about all this too.
It's very hard to say, but if the game doesn't release until 2011 ( They said 1 major game release per year and starcraft has been delayed to 2010 ) My guess would be around 40%.
Edit: First post btw
I just read a thread about quoting a Blizzard official saying that there could be two game releases in a single year o.O so maybe you should rethink that, mwhahahaha.
Personally, in 2008 they said they were just working on content. Now, after a whole year of working, I think they are done with all of the classes, probably a couple of slight changes for balancing perhaps, but I think they are still working on the quests, the creatures, and maybe the storyline.
So I will say 65%-70%. Keep in mind a lot of the work in making a game are the final touches and the last tweaking and fixing last minute kind of stuff.
I didn't mean to say it as a fact, that was my opinion, yours does not make it more true just because you base it on numbers, it is merely more "popular".
I'm just trying to show the difference. Popular does not mean better. Its just more popular. The end. Its in absolutely no way better because of its sales, and no, you can't use these numbers to support how a game is "better" or not.
There are no proof, there is no way to know what is better because its entirely subjective, thus this whole discussion is silly, but you did say that WoW was NOT a below average game, which you cannot know.
Equinox brought some good points about all this too.
Then how do you judge if a game is good or bad? Wouldn't you think that a company who creates games would judge how 'good' the game is based upon how many people purchase it, how long they play it and if subscriptions are possible, how many people subscribe?
I have already said I am not a big fan of WoW, though I myself did play the game and enjoy my time playing it, it just got old after a while. You are entitled to your opinion and I am not saying that you cannot think WoW is a below average game. What I am saying is that millions of people have a different opinion than you that WoW is a good game.
So will Blizzard ignore the masses and go with the minority of gamers? I don't think so. From a company perspective they are going to create games that a lot of people enjoy, because that is the goal of a company creating the game.
And for those of you naive enough to believe Blizzard didn't create Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Starcraft, etc. to appeal to people... Then what the hell did they make them for? "All they care about is making a good game, they didn't care if people played it."? What sense does that even make? Why even release the game then? Why don't they just create it and play it themselves if they don't care what people think?
Bad comparison. D2 and SC are not supported. WoW is. WoW's playerbase would dissipate the moment Blizzard stops supporting it if they keep the monthly fee. It's a temporary game. Not to mention that MMO's are hard to support, and Blizzard is making a second one. The amount of loyal players WoW has is very low compared to D2 or SC, especially if you exclude PServers.
Diablo 2 and Starcraft have more dedicated players than WoW? MAYBE Starcraft, since it captivated an entire country.
Diablo 2 I do not even think is remotely close. Log on to USEast or USWest, there aren't even that many people on there anymore.
Didn't WoW have 10 million people subscribing to it? Did Diablo 2 even sell 10 million copies? I know Starcraft sold over 11 million, but I HIGHLY doubt that all 11 million still play.
Obviously it will fall apart when Blizzard stops supporting it and charging a monthly fee... It is an MMO, what MMO wouldn't fall apart if that happened? What the hell kind of logic is that? WoW has been going and has had more subscribers since it's release in what, 2004?
"and.. we have uhh.. I think (2:06 in interview) most of the other classes are actually playable back in the home office, but I'm not gonna tell you about them today. Also the First Act is also pretty playable, but we still have a long ways to go, mainly on the content side now..."
So that was in June 28, 2008, so more than a year ago. So for everyone doubting whether they are done with the classes, I think we can gurantee that they are at least at the last stage in balancing and that kind of thing.
I still go back to my 60% - 65% done. You guys who are guessing the 20% range... all I'll say is that is a good technique to set your hopes low so they don't get crushed, but thats not realistic at all..
Yes, and like Seth said, it IS most interesting to see how far diablo 3 is in the minds of the forums.
No matter what's the % of D3, I'm pretty sure that they will be ready to release near end of 2010. I'm guessing it's the second game they have been hinting on that will be released in 2010 pre SC2. If not, I doubt they would of announced it so early. (June 2008).
we are talking about 2 years between announcement and release date. Any longer would be simply rediculous. Plus by the time they release D3 Bnet will be long done and they won't have that as an excuse for delaying like they did with SC2 recently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
I guess you have something against WoW?
I know I do, but WoW isn't a piece of crap either. You can say what you want, I see a lot in WoW that proves Blizzard are not idiots, and they are one of the best game makers out there. Its far from perfect, but you'd hope they will learn from that in their future game - thats Diablo 3.
Deleting features is never nice, and I don't agree, but you have to get over that as well. I hate to admit it myself, but a game's development just never completes itself without sacrifices. We are just made aware of these, and that makes it more painful.
I personally think D3 has a lot of potential to be a lot of fun already. SC2? Not so much. I see absolutely -nothing- there I'm looking forward too much, except "more starcraft". But D3 is doing well.
You also can't just go around and say "Diablo 3 MUST have a LOT of content because of the time you waited". It hasn't been in full production all this time, you have no idea how much thats worth and you shouldn't give yourself such high expectation. You are only going to be disappointed.
My big point though, is that most gaming company sucks big time these days. If you actually look around you and the games around these days... Blizzard still seems to old a level of quality above them and think more about making good games than just siphoning money (and yes, I know WoW is giving them a load, but thats one game).
They may not deserve people blindly praising their game making skills, you got the right to be skeptical about all this, but I'm confident that they can give us something truly good, though they are far from anything revolutionary.
As far as this whole "Nothing new in Starcraft 2" crap is rediculous. What exactly did you expect? They have come up with a LOT of new concepts for different units and upgrades. Never once in SC1 do I recall there being a drop pod system. How about the ability to get resources faster (with things such as the MULEs and Dark Pylons)? Limited high resource mineral fields to ACTUALLY give you something on the field worth fighting over. Destructables? Units capable of scaling ledges without a dropship? Warp-ins? There are a TON of new things for the basic game alone, and the campaign is TOTALLY revamped now. Have you even watched any of the SC2 panels from Blizzcon 08 or are you just guessing? Not to mention they are adding on to the story line, something I have been DYING to know more about since I finished Brood War. As it stands now, SC2 looks like its going to be a major success.
And SFJake makes a very good point, how many damned good gaming companies are still around? I rented TONS of console games this summer from Blockbuster (since they have that deal where you can rent games and swap them out before their due, not to mention you can cheat their services and keep games an extra week) and I have been completely floored at how bad video games are becoming. Ghostbusters: such a brilliant game to create now that they have the proper tech for it, and they couldn't even fix half of the stupid bugs. Half the game is WAY too easy until you get the final level and then its just WHOA. Then you come to the last boss and he is piss poor simple. Rainbow 6 Vegas? That game didn't stay in my house for more than 2 days. I mainly rented it because it looked cool and it had coop (I play a lot with my friends). The coop was so piss poor shitty: you don't even get the story in coop mode its just you killing people... Force Unleashed? Its as if they didn't even test half of that game... The only two games I have played this summer that were anywhere near worth it have been Gears 2 and Prototype... I remember the days where a good number of good games existed, now half of those games that still exist have been changed so much its not even fun anymore. Blizzard is one of the last few gaming companies in existance that still bring hope of good games for this generation. I'm not even sure if I am excited about the games that we will see in the next decade when I look at the crap thats coming out any more...
That being said, let Blizzard make their damn games and be happy that Blizzard is even still around! Out of my two favorite gaming companies from my childhood (Blizzard and Bullfrog), only one of them still exists to even make good games, and I am very grateful for it.
60%.
Blizzard or not, I evaluate games before I buy them. I also evaluate the company's attitude. If that combination doesn't appeal to me, I'm not buying the game. That's pretty much it. I have nothing to get over, I can just turn to something else. Unlike most people here, I'm not a crazy Diablo fan and can get over another broken promise just as I got over the "WarCraft" III.
I find that very suspicious.
That's the conclusion I arrived at. They really haven't been developing it that much and they're going to start doing it when they're closer to release because they actually don't need that much time to develop it.
Well, you see, I feel WCIII and WoW are not exactly Blizzard products as we know them anymore.
I am not a big fan of World of Warcraft. I played it for a while, it was a lot of fun when I did, but MMOs just aren't really my thing.
How can you honestly say that WoW is below average? Or a bad game? Are you kidding me?
Why is it crushing all of the other MMOs then? Why do so many people play it? Why have those people played it for such a long period of time?
There is a reason that the game is so huge, because it is probably the greatest game of it's genre ever created. All of the 'hardcore gamers' can pick it apart, they can say it isn't the best, but in the end the masses disagree with you and that is all Blizzard cares about.
Blizzard is in the business to make great games and through making great games, make a ton of money. Would a 'bad game' really have the success that World of Warcraft has had over such a long period of time? No.
I've been here before Diablo III was announced, and I will be here if Diablo III flunks, in fact, given the condition of the forum during DIII's announcement, if DIII succeeds I'll probably have to leave. But for now, this is my home, and Diablo has little to do with it.
Halo is below average yet is one of the most popular shooter. That doesn't mean anything. Just mean a good portion of its player base are ignorant of anything better, as in they are literally fed these games as if they were the only ones good.
Not saying anything against WoW here, but just saying popularity does not make something good, and in some case just mean it was wonderfully advertised.
200% ... Soon enought (100% bonus is for the expansion). Hehe.
MAYBE?
But seriously, if they are so good at secrets, why not have it like.. 98%? Adding stuff and ideas for the expansion to make great "bridge" between them?
BUT... LOGICALLY
Hmmm.. I would say around 60%..
:: Enkeria [Twitter / Twitch / Website / Tattoos]
Never, in my life, will you see me judging a game's quality over how many people play it. Not someone who is a fan of games most people aren't even aware of.
That, I fear, and if that is so, DIII will suck, and Blizzard will lose its title as the creator of great games, because that title is defined by people who play a game for 10 years, not the casual WoW subscriber. The true measure of a game's quality is not how many people play it when it's supported, it's how many people still love it when the hype is gone.
I am glad you think Sims is the best game ever created, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
It is below average why? Because you say so? How do you evaluate how 'good' a game is other than sales and the amount of people playing it? It's like saying Titanic wasn't a good movie, even though it crushed every other movie at the box office. You might not be a fan of it, but it was good and the numbers prove it.
All of those people that you talk about would disagree with you. Will you find a lot more people out there that like Halo as opposed to not liking it.
World of Warcraft has earned game of the year honors and has a massive, dedicated, cult like following behind it that has made Blizzards millions upon millions of dollars. It isn't just proven by how many people purchased the game, but how many people continue to play it.
Every company in the world would take that 'idiotic community' over you any day.
Games are not better just because you say that they are.
Yeah, Diablo 2 didn't "crush" the competition, it only won game of the year? Diablo 2 (and Starcraft) are still played by a massive amount of people, much like WoW.
So if millions of people think that Diablo 3 is great or for that matter that WoW is great, you think that your opinion will somehow remove the title of 'great game maker' from Blizzard? How many people do you think that you influence?
Most people in USSR loved Stalin.
Most peopel are stupid.
Most people are racist.
Most do not have an education.
StarDock and CCP totally would. /sarcasm
For me, personally, what I say is the only thing that matters. I didn't lose my individuality yet, I can actually judge a game by how much I like it not by how many people bought it and think like "if most people like it I must be wrong". I'd fail the Asch's Conformity test. >>
A lot of games win game of the year, take Oblivion. It wasn't best-selling. It wasn't a huge cash cow or anything.
Bad comparison. D2 and SC are not supported. WoW is. WoW's playerbase would dissipate the moment Blizzard stops supporting it if they keep the monthly fee. It's a temporary game. Not to mention that MMO's are hard to support, and Blizzard is making a second one. The amount of loyal players WoW has is very low compared to D2 or SC, especially if you exclude PServers.
Not just mine. That of loyal players. I just happen to be one of them. Only people who's opinions are their own matter here. If hardcore players won't like DIII Blizzard will have the same title as EA does. The maker of random popular games.
Not among sheep, of course, just among people who understand what is quality and what is hype.
If Blizzard released EQ2 instead of WoW it would be just as popular.
I didn't mean to say it as a fact, that was my opinion, yours does not make it more true just because you base it on numbers, it is merely more "popular".
I'm just trying to show the difference. Popular does not mean better. Its just more popular. The end. Its in absolutely no way better because of its sales, and no, you can't use these numbers to support how a game is "better" or not.
There are no proof, there is no way to know what is better because its entirely subjective, thus this whole discussion is silly, but you did say that WoW was NOT a below average game, which you cannot know.
Equinox brought some good points about all this too.
I just read a thread about quoting a Blizzard official saying that there could be two game releases in a single year o.O so maybe you should rethink that, mwhahahaha.
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20851
Personally, in 2008 they said they were just working on content. Now, after a whole year of working, I think they are done with all of the classes, probably a couple of slight changes for balancing perhaps, but I think they are still working on the quests, the creatures, and maybe the storyline.
So I will say 65%-70%. Keep in mind a lot of the work in making a game are the final touches and the last tweaking and fixing last minute kind of stuff.
Then how do you judge if a game is good or bad? Wouldn't you think that a company who creates games would judge how 'good' the game is based upon how many people purchase it, how long they play it and if subscriptions are possible, how many people subscribe?
I have already said I am not a big fan of WoW, though I myself did play the game and enjoy my time playing it, it just got old after a while. You are entitled to your opinion and I am not saying that you cannot think WoW is a below average game. What I am saying is that millions of people have a different opinion than you that WoW is a good game.
So will Blizzard ignore the masses and go with the minority of gamers? I don't think so. From a company perspective they are going to create games that a lot of people enjoy, because that is the goal of a company creating the game.
And for those of you naive enough to believe Blizzard didn't create Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Starcraft, etc. to appeal to people... Then what the hell did they make them for? "All they care about is making a good game, they didn't care if people played it."? What sense does that even make? Why even release the game then? Why don't they just create it and play it themselves if they don't care what people think?
Diablo 2 and Starcraft have more dedicated players than WoW? MAYBE Starcraft, since it captivated an entire country.
Diablo 2 I do not even think is remotely close. Log on to USEast or USWest, there aren't even that many people on there anymore.
Didn't WoW have 10 million people subscribing to it? Did Diablo 2 even sell 10 million copies? I know Starcraft sold over 11 million, but I HIGHLY doubt that all 11 million still play.
Obviously it will fall apart when Blizzard stops supporting it and charging a monthly fee... It is an MMO, what MMO wouldn't fall apart if that happened? What the hell kind of logic is that? WoW has been going and has had more subscribers since it's release in what, 2004?
Sorry Seth if someone has already helped you.. but in an interview with Rob Pardo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB-nVF2UcdE , and he says :
"and.. we have uhh.. I think (2:06 in interview) most of the other classes are actually playable back in the home office, but I'm not gonna tell you about them today. Also the First Act is also pretty playable, but we still have a long ways to go, mainly on the content side now..."
So that was in June 28, 2008, so more than a year ago. So for everyone doubting whether they are done with the classes, I think we can gurantee that they are at least at the last stage in balancing and that kind of thing.
I still go back to my 60% - 65% done. You guys who are guessing the 20% range... all I'll say is that is a good technique to set your hopes low so they don't get crushed, but thats not realistic at all..
Yes, and like Seth said, it IS most interesting to see how far diablo 3 is in the minds of the forums.
we are talking about 2 years between announcement and release date. Any longer would be simply rediculous. Plus by the time they release D3 Bnet will be long done and they won't have that as an excuse for delaying like they did with SC2 recently.
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
You haven't been following Blizzard for very long, have you?
The only thing they do better than make games is delay the release of said games.