Hello Diablofans! A long-time lurker here finally making a post. I would like to start off by saying I have been a huge fan of most Blizzard games (in fact I have played/own EVERY single game Blizzard has made [Even Blackthrone and Lost Vikings]) . However after having played Starcraft 2 I can safely assume the magic that Blizzard had for making great games may be corroding, very quickly.
Starcraft 2 is a decent game. However that's the problem, for a game that's been in development for nearly a decade it is very very underwhelming. First of all let's look at the infrastructure of Starcarft 2 which is the havok physics engine and Battle.net 2. The engine seems quite advanced yet and is probably more than enough. However my gripe is with the new Battle.net system. I could not believe my eyes when I first got into the beta and tried out the new Battle.net. The whole time I was thinking "What a piece of crap" Because let's be honest here, you CANNOT defend Battle.net2. It is just that bad. No Clan system (A feature that was in Warcraft 3 a game that came out half a decade before Starcraft 2), No Chat Channel on release (Seriously? It took them 6months to add a crappy pseudo-chat channel system), Region Locking (Thanks for restricting global e-sports more Blizzard), No LAN (For a game striving to the best e-sports vehicle on the market this is pretty fail) a VERY VERY mediocre single-player (I will look over this as Starcraft 2 is more about multiplayer, but yeah the campaign SUCKED balls), a very under-developed Zerg race (This 'opinion' is formed after watching all the interviews of top Zerg players globally [Idra, Nestea, Fruitdealer, LiquidRet, oGsZenio]) and above all it's basically copied everything in Brood War (Let me elaborate on this further down the post).
Keep in mind this is a game that's been in development for TEN fucking years. Is this acceptable? Should a company that USED to produce the greatest games on the planet be reduced to this? I am not saying Starcraft 2 is shit. I am saying its shit for a game thats been developed over a decade.
This is where I start worrying about Diablo 3. Seeing how badly Starcraft 2 turned out, what can we expect of Diablo 3? The gameplay footages we have acquired so far are fucking stellar (Not gonna lie, can i haz lazer beams?). The gameplay reviews of those who have played the alpha/pre-beta versions at Blizzcon/other gaming conventions are generally positive.
However take into account Starcraft 2 possessed all these features during its alpha/pre-beta. It's only when the beta hit did the shit-storm truly brew. Many pointed out the fact that Starcraft 2 encouraged non-macro, aggressive-cheesey builds. Now as a spectator game this is the worst thing ever. Every single game ending under 5minutes, games ending with Giant Ball vs Giant Ball, Zero micro, no need to macro. To use actual games as evidence, I would like to encourage everyone to watch Jaedong VS Flash on Blue Storm (Youtube.com, just type Jaedong vs Flash and you will get a plethora of high level awesomeness) which is considered one of the greatest games of Brood War ever. Now compare this to the greatest game of Starcraft 2 (Which isn't very fair considering how young Starcraft 2 is) IMMvP vs ST_Squirttle on Creavesse (GSTL Set 8).
The sheer difference in entertainment value between Brood war and Starcraft 2 is staggering. Simply put Starcraft 2 isn't very entertaining to watch (Starcraft 2 is broadcasted only via internet where as Brood War still has channels dedicated to bringing the games to your Televsion [If anyone says GSL is on Television I will stab them as GSL is only broadcasted over the net]).
This post is in the hopes that Diablo 3 does not end up like Starcraft 2. Which is a decent game but I have trouble accepting that it is an heir worthy of Brood War nor is it a game that displays a 10-year development cycle quality.
I am really hoping that Blizzard just fucking scraps Battle.net 2 because it is terrible. Why they would devote so much fucking time to implement facebook integration is beyond me (Starcraft 2 was delayed by 6months due what many believe were Blizzard's attempt at greater social network prescense [I know it's fucking pathetic]). IF (NOTICE THE IF) Diablo 3 happens to flop then we can safely conclude that maybe Blizzard's time is over and it would be time for them to fade away and make way for newer and more creative minds.
I never was a fan of Starcraft 1 to begin with, but i did play the campaign and tried out the multiplayer part (very very unforgiving to noobs like me). Now i also played Starcraft II (been there in the beta too). In comparison (to me as an amateur at least) i think it's easier to learn, far more difficult to master, as was Blizzard's aim. The campaign is fun and interesting, the multiplayer is not as unforgiving (okay, you will loose many games at first but at least in the lower leagues you can win, which wasn't the case in Starcraft 1).
Also, the game wasn't 10 years in development, as it was the same team that made Warcraft III (The Frozen Throne was released 2003, right?) so it was more like 6-7 years in development. Considering how polished the end-product was (barely any optimization issues) and how few bugs it had, i'll dare to say they did a pretty good job.
Now on the "more of the same" part, i agree with you. They removed tons of units, added very few others but that was a decision they made to keep the game relatively balanced. It's not even 1 year out and it's already doing very well in terms of balance. As for rushes and cheese... they're encouraged but not overpowered. Those that fail to scout are bound to lose. But those that scout and respond usually beat their opponents.
Not sure where you live that you used to have Starcraft broadcasted on TV, but except for Korea, i don't think they had games broadcasted anywhere.
Now Diablo III is a whole different kind of game. There's no need to make it e-sport friendly. It's all about making it interesting and cool. I won't judge the game as it still has some time till it's released, but so far i can hope for something really good.
On the battle.net 2 matter, all i can say is that i find it more user friendly than the original. The matchmaking system is awesome too. I hated having to look for games and always getting smacked by players better than myself cause it wasn't clear which league i should be playing against... not that much fun, right?
StarCraft 2 is a product that, marketing wise, hit the spot. I had a discussion today about "Are games art?". And they are, but... what do the likes of Blizzard do with them? They use them to get money. Its the obvious goal of any business, but this is beyond that. An art should remain an art, and StarCraft 2 is not. However, the people, the customers are to blame for this more than the companies themselves.
Because they made SC2 possible. Lets ask this: Why such an average game like StarCraft 2 make such an impact? People all over the world get screwed over daily by this kind of pathetic gaming trend.
Sorry, I think I'm losing focus here. StarCraft 2 had one single minded intention: To create and control esports. With it, came a pathetic single player campaign (well, its FUN, in my opinion. But the story is pathetic.). Its all about money.
Every single action on their part is about CONTROL and MONEY. Nothing else.
There was no risk taken anywhere. The multiplayer is bland and limited. There is little depth, because everything was created to be balanced exactly for used as esport. If anyone ever witnessed the evolution of gaming competitions, they would know that competitives games have depths when all elements in it are not sewed so carefully, and instead risks are taken.
Now, I've lost myself writing this, so I'll just say that: I don't believe Diablo 3's fate is quite the same. D3 is not going to be milked as an esport game. However, it is looking like it might be aimed at the more casual gamers. But honestly, I don't really know what to expect. We'll have to see.
This is the new age of gaming. It has been so for quite some time. Its like following a music group of say, rock, that you love and live for, and after the years they move on to rap, because rap sells better. Its not about if you prefer rock or rap here, point is: Its not about doing what is artistically the best, its not about making great games. Its just, and only, about making sure they bring as much money as possible home.
You're a fool if you believe they have any other goals than this. The quality and quantity of whatever they make, is in the form it is only, and only because that is all it needs to get us to buy it en masse.
Just enough cheese to make the mouse bite.
Now I'm not saying nobody at all cares about the quality of the game. But its not a goal. I'm sure there are some eager developers or producers behind that would love their games to be a certain way. But you cannot fathom the limitations and cut they are imposed. No way will a game project go anywhere beyond what it needs to be to sell well. Its a waste of money to do so.
I'm a very light SC2 player, mostly just from my lack of interest in the genre. I haven't followed and don't pretend to know anything about it's development other than it took a damn long time, as is Diablo 3. I will say this though, I've been following Diablo 3 like that hot chick across my house who always leaves her window open while changing. I have complete faith in the team, and Jay's ambitions. The gameplay footage from 2 years ago is good enough for a squeal from a regular gaming company. Bliz just takes it one step farther. Also, keep in mine SC2 was from the begging meant to be a E-Sport game. Which in its case means it not only has to follow the lore of SC, but has to be simple and watchable enough to be classed as a grad A E-Sport. No revolution here, only evolution.
Diablo 3 on the other hand is no where near, and has no ambitions of being an E-Sport, Jay said himself SC2 covered that. Diablo is a hack and slash omg that guys head just came off -jizz in pants- game. The lore of Diablo is pretty open, and isn't expected to followed 100% through into the game detail for detail either, no that SC2 was. Given what we've seen, and the coverage we've had, I think you should be confident they'll pull through with flying colors.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I find it quite sad that many here are saying that Starcraft 2 single player wasn't bad. It really feels like (although everyone is entitled to their opinion) the story was a huge let down for me. It really lacked the depth that previous Blizzard games have had. The ending was incredibly poorly crafted and felt very anti climatic. Also to those making comparisons between BW Battle.net and Starcraft 2 battle.net and saying B.net2 is superior to Brood War's b.net. That is true however compare Warcraft3 B.net and compare B.net2. You will find that B.net 2 gets blown out of the water. Bnet 2 IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. Warcraft 3 b.net is what you would call user friendly. The custom games had no MB requirements for publishing, self-named lobbies, private/moderated chat rooms with NO person(s) limit. To those saying Starcraft 2 was marketed as an esports game, if that is the case then Starcraft 2 is a HUGE failure. The point of e-sports is LAN / REGION ACCESS (Allows for global online tourneys/events). Starcraft2 fails on all these counts. How do we know Blizzard won't mess up Diablo 3?
All i am saying is look at the quality decrease between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft2.
Warcraft 3 has
-Global Access to all four b.net services
-LAN support
-Unlimited Publishing for map makers
-Clan Support (Seriously how the fuck does Starcraft 2 not have this yet? A game that markets itself as an "e-sport vehicle" doesn't have support for clans? Seriously who can defend this pont?)
-Chat rooms that could be privately moderated / no player cap (Very good for online tournament organizers)
-Organized Ladder tourneys (Yes there were monthly ladder tourneys in 3 brackets (1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3) Starcraft 2 has ZERO b.net run tourneys.
-Automated Matchmaking for all divisions.
Now let's see what Starcraft 2 (b.net2) brings to the table that Warcraft 3 doesn't.
-Facebook integration
-? (Seriously I tried my hardest to think of a facet that B.net2 offers that War3 B.net did not offer)
Now from this we can see the quality of the online services offered by Blizzard has decreased quite a bit between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2(These are the two most modern games that use the B.net system [Although WoW uses the same infrastructure for hosting its realms, they are said to be developed differently to what Starcraft/Diablo/Warcraft RTS uses]).
If someone can convince me that the direction of Blizzard games hasn't decreased using evidence such as: Status of B.net, Status of Single-player, Status of Accessibility to many regions (which is essential to foster global connectivity)
It was kind of sad for me that SC2 was meant to be this definitive esport game. I spent many many hours on the first Starcraft just playing the campaign and custom games against the computer. I realize that's probably kind of nerdy sounding to the more hardcore players, but that really was so fun for me. I won't say too much about the multiplayer other than I'm not that great at it and I break out into nervous sweats when I do it.
But what I did know for sure about the multiplayer is that I'd never be that great at it. It's not a game you can play very casually online and still play to win. I really just got the game for its single player campaign and I think I was a little naive in my expectations for it. The story...wasn't actually that bad. I mean I felt it had a bit too many parallels to the story of WC3, and after Kerrigan's incessant trash talking in SC1 and Brood Wars I really did wanna see Tychus put a bullet in her head, but besides that it was a fun space adventure with some interesting plot elements and not too many contrived twists.
It was hard though from mission to mission just to bask in the game and take my sweet time with it. I know the game developers were really proud of the campaign and how each mission had its own unique dynamic to it. And initially I was really impressed too. But after finishing the campaign so quickly, not because it wasn't challenging enough, but just because the missions were always rushing you along it felt, I just felt kind of bummed out it was all over. And I figured, well, I can't play the Zerg and Protoss campaigns yet so I guess this means I have to force myself to get into multiplayer if I'm to continue to enjoy and get my money's worth out of this game.
Each mission you had to do a thing quickly before A escpaed or B destroyed the planet or C got more minerals than you. Speaking of that mission where you have to get more minerals before that other guy first so you can buy the mercenaries contract, once you do, you're faced with a standard mission more akin to the original SC. Where the goal now was just to eliminate the enemy's base and you had all the time in the world to do it. Seems great except the moment you start that half of the mission you have more than enough units needed already just to go wipe them out. I was like, "Sweet I got the minerals! Just barely! Now I'm gonna enjoy building up my army gradually and fending off intermittent attacks until I have what's necessary to take out the enemy base." But no, my fun was ruined when suddenly I have this huge fuck off army right away and it wasn't even a challenge.
Like, yes it was nice in SC2 campaign that they mixed things up. But I also missed the grind of SC. The kind of grind that took hours and I had to destroy every single last supply depot to pass the mission. It's not like I wanted it all the time in SC2, but give me at least a few straightforward missions where I build my army from practically nothing and go in bit by bit to wipe the enemy off the map. But everything was so hurried and rushed. I did like the mission though where you have to enter the Protoss nullification field to get that artifact thingy. That mission was the kind of grind I was hoping for. It's one of the few I'll replay still.
So anyway, I feebly have made attempts now and again to get good at the multiplayer game but I just don't have the condescending teenage voice within me to ever be that good at it. "Oh what's that? Build a supply depot by the ramp? Got it...sorry." No, that's me responding to that teenager with the annoying voice.
It seems to me that most people who were in it for the multiplayer really got their money's worth while the campaign to them was just kind of a bonus thing on the side for when they were bored. But I think serious online SC2 players don't really bother with the campaign cause it dulls your multiplayer skills. I got so used to all the cool units I could have in the missions that I just didn't seem to know how to adapt to the multiplayer where I was robbed of almost everything righteous. But I get it. I'm just not good at the multiplayer. I can live with that. I only wished I got more replayability out of the campaign or that the campaign was more important to the developers to release all three races at once.
Nevertheless, I don't think any misgivings I've had about SC2 have carried over to Diablo 3. They are in fact very different games with a totally different team developing them. I'm confident also that the balance between multiplayer and single player will be well done. That's the kind of balance that concerns me most here anyway. The one between a good multiplayer and single player experience. Cause sometimes I will want to just explore on my own. Other times, I wanna join up with friends or kill other players.
But I think I can inarguably say that SC2's single player and multiplayer experiences are highly disproportionate of each other.
Ok to the poster above me. You say you cannot agree with me yet you state you have high expectations of Diablo 3. That is exactly EXACTLY how i felt about Starcraft 2. If our positions were reversed you would notice how flawed Starcraft 2 is (This is coming from a 2800 Diamond player, C+ Player on ICCUP BW [Simply stating this to say I would have stronger opinions and insight into starcraft 2 seeing as I am a fanatic to the STarcraft universe]).
Ok to the poster above me. You say you cannot agree with me yet you state you have high expectations of Diablo 3. That is exactly EXACTLY how i felt about Starcraft 2. If our positions were reversed you would notice how flawed Starcraft 2 is (This is coming from a 2800 Diamond player, C+ Player on ICCUP BW [Simply stating this to say I would have stronger opinions and insight into starcraft 2 seeing as I am a fanatic to the STarcraft universe]).
But you are saying that you are worried about Diablo 3 on the basis of how disappointed you were in Starcraft 2. I think even as far back as the first Starcraft you had so many people who refused to play it, while plenty of others who refused to get into the Diablo games.
I don't think there's anything wrong about your arguments against SC2. What I'm wondering though is what that necessarily has to do with Diablo. Not what it has to do with, but what it necessarily has to do with. And consider also just how the entire gaming industry has changed so much over the years anyway when you answer that.
You make a very logical argument. Surly comparing Starcraft 2 & Diablo 3 is not prudent from a logical stand-point. However if we look at the small details that were wrong with Starcraft 2 (Such as having no chat channels on release/no guild-system [I would say these are too important to simply say "they forgot, the programming wasn't good enough"]) can we truly say that Blizzard has the same vision and passion for their products? It seems the mistakes of Starcraft2 could surly repeat themselves with Diablo3.
You make a very logical argument. Surly comparing Starcraft 2 & Diablo 3 is not prudent from a logical stand-point. However if we look at the small details that were wrong with Starcraft 2 (Such as having no chat channels on release/no guild-system [I would say these are too important to simply say "they forgot, the programming wasn't good enough"]) can we truly say that Blizzard has the same vision and passion for their products? It seems the mistakes of Starcraft2 could surly repeat themselves with Diablo3.
Well in your first post you talk a lot about how you don't like Battle.net now as it is. I care little for guild anything. And as long as I can find my friends on it and join games with them that's all that matters to me. I'm confident I'll be able to do that just fine.
I agree with some things you said about SC2 even though I don't know as much about multiplayer. And yes, Blizzard has changed as was inevitable. I suspect you, like myself at times, am also just nostalgic for that era of the gaming industry. Not that I think that's the only reason for your complaints.
In 2-3 years from now, once heart of the swarm and legacy of the void will be released. You will be able to bask into the true glory of starcraft 2. Only then will the game be completed imo. Its just so obvious that they made it a triology so they can put something out and satisfy the fans. I personally would have wait another 1-3 years for a better and a complete sc2 but whatever. Sc2 is a great game.
Ok to the poster above me. You say you cannot agree with me yet you state you have high expectations of Diablo 3. That is exactly EXACTLY how i felt about Starcraft 2. If our positions were reversed you would notice how flawed Starcraft 2 is (This is coming from a 2800 Diamond player, C+ Player on ICCUP BW [Simply stating this to say I would have stronger opinions and insight into starcraft 2 seeing as I am a fanatic to the STarcraft universe]).
I feel like you were quick to jump the gun with my post rather than reading it.
So to quote myself:
But D3 is a different story; I have insane levels of expectations which I am trying to artifically lower so the game doesn't let me down. But D3 is the first and only game I have been this addicted too before the game is even out... So it very well could let me down but this is my fault for being so hyped; not blizzards fault for making a less-than-perfect game.
Notice the bolded bit? I think having high expectations is not the fault of the company but the fault of the user. We should expect a quality product and anything beyond that is a bonus. You had too high expectations and those could never be met; but being objective - SC2 is a good game - good enough for me to play a couple of hundred hours of anyway - so the magic is still very much alive.
And I was disagreeing with the *blizzard-lost-their-magic* vibe on the grounds that the last 3 blizzard games I played; I have loved and played for many many many many many hours.
I agree that my stance on D3 is similar to your stance on SC2 though but that was not really disputed in my post - and in fact my last paragraph says that.
Ah I apologize, in the future I will strive to read a bit more vigorously and accurately. I do sincerely hope Diablo 3 is the game we have been waiting a decade for. I do not understand some of the thought process that is going on at Blizzard HQ.
HOWEVER as many have noted, Starcraft 2 IS a different game from Diablo 3 and it is unfair to make any conclusions on any faults Diablo 3 may have by looking at the short comings of Starcraft 2.
Here's a pessimist (i know we are the worst kind of people) hoping that the days of ol' shall return to us as we hack ourselves through the gates of hell.
Oh, cool, so we have to pay for 3 games just to get 1 proper game. Excellent.
Oh come on...
And no, I don't think Blizzard has lost its magic at all. Starcraft 2 offered enough changes in terms of units and a much needed update in graphics, AI, and all those other things that change with a decade of game making. If it had been changed much more from SC1, there would have been outrage. The game is simply considered perfect by so many people, so Blizzard didn't have much room for innovation, especially considering their goal to make it an E-Sport. What they did do is create an excellent example of the current RTS without innovating all that much. They achieved their goal of making a good, very well balanced game, that doesn't really upset the diehard fans of SC1. Unfortunately, the game they had to almost constrain to was made ten years ago, so it made SC2 seem unimpressive to some. I personally don't agree, but I do see where people are coming from. In my mind, the new units and mechanics (such as new sight lines) are just enough to make it seem like a sequel. After all, its not like sequels are really ever that much different from the original.
In terms of Diablo 3, their goal is clearly to incorporate a large amount of things that weren't in the previous games. As such, no, I'm not that worried about D3, and if anything the quality of SC2 made me more confident that D3 will be good. Think what you will, as everyone has their own opinion, but the game has sold 4.5 million copies and got a 93% on Metacritic. Its at least considered a good game by the general populous. Now, it would obviously suck if D3 came out to rave reviews and huge sales, but in your opinion it sucks. But it does shot that as far as quality of product, Blizzard is still putting out games that are considered excellent by most people.
What I do think has happened is that people have found a way to hate Blizzard through World of Warcraft. In the end, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, every company out there exists solely based on the money it makes. And its not like Blizzard is just pumping out crappy games and has turned into something like EA. SC2 and WoW are considered (again, by critics/sales) some of the best games out there. And sure, you might be one of those people who find that reviews don't necessarily determine if you enjoy a game, but its probably the best system out there to determine the quality of a video game (other than playing it yourself.)
So yes, people will reminisce about the "good old days" as with anything. Especially when the last game in the Diablo series was put out so long ago and its all people have to remember. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard is putting out worse games now than it was then and I'm sure D3 will be a game that in 10 years we'll be looking back on and saying "I wish games were still made like that."
There's a very short, straightforward answer to this. In a management meeting circa 1999, the faces around the table would have included Adham, Morhaime, Pearce, Brevik, the Schaefers, Roper, O'Brian, maybe Strain and maybe Williams. All but two of those are gone, and everything released since has been an expansion to or a remake of games that were already under development at that point.
Oh, cool, so we have to pay for 3 games just to get 1 proper game. Excellent.
What I do think has happened is that people have found a way to hate Blizzard through World of Warcraft. In the end, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, every company out there exists solely based on the money it makes. And its not like Blizzard is just pumping out crappy games and has turned into something like EA. SC2 and WoW are considered (again, by critics/sales) some of the best games out there. And sure, you might be one of those people who find that reviews don't necessarily determine if you enjoy a game, but its probably the best system out there to determine the quality of a video game (other than playing it yourself.)
You're just blinded and enrolled into exactly what they want if you believe they are any different than EA.
I'm sorry, this topic is sad. That people find enjoyment in SC2 is certainly their right and in fact, I enjoyed it too. Its a lovely little world and not everybody has to care about what's happening to the gaming world to that level.
But when people like yourself just think there is nothing wrong with Blizzard, and defend them in such a way, I just die a little inside. SC2 and WoW are considered some of the best games out there? Yes, thats -exactly- the problem. Seems like not a lot of people here understand, or care to understand.
I mean, how one can not see that gaming has been ridiculed by companies in the last decade, and how one can defend Blizzard and think they don't do the same? No, Blizzard, EA, even Valve, they're all the same now.
My point is, I prefer one to say "I don't care, I just buy the games and enjoy them", than try to defend Blizzard. You can just not care about the whole issue, there's still enjoyment to be found. But how one can defend them is beyond my understanding.
Oh, cool, so we have to pay for 3 games just to get 1 proper game. Excellent.
Oh come on...
And no, I don't think Blizzard has lost its magic at all. Starcraft 2 offered enough changes in terms of units and a much needed update in graphics, AI, and all those other things that change with a decade of game making. If it had been changed much more from SC1, there would have been outrage. The game is simply considered perfect by so many people, so Blizzard didn't have much room for innovation, especially considering their goal to make it an E-Sport. What they did do is create an excellent example of the current RTS without innovating all that much. They achieved their goal of making a good, very well balanced game, that doesn't really upset the diehard fans of SC1. Unfortunately, the game they had to almost constrain to was made ten years ago, so it made SC2 seem unimpressive to some. I personally don't agree, but I do see where people are coming from. In my mind, the new units and mechanics (such as new sight lines) are just enough to make it seem like a sequel. After all, its not like sequels are really ever that much different from the original.
In terms of Diablo 3, their goal is clearly to incorporate a large amount of things that weren't in the previous games. As such, no, I'm not that worried about D3, and if anything the quality of SC2 made me more confident that D3 will be good. Think what you will, as everyone has their own opinion, but the game has sold 4.5 million copies and got a 93% on Metacritic. Its at least considered a good game by the general populous. Now, it would obviously suck if D3 came out to rave reviews and huge sales, but in your opinion it sucks. But it does shot that as far as quality of product, Blizzard is still putting out games that are considered excellent by most people.
What I do think has happened is that people have found a way to hate Blizzard through World of Warcraft. In the end, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, every company out there exists solely based on the money it makes. And its not like Blizzard is just pumping out crappy games and has turned into something like EA. SC2 and WoW are considered (again, by critics/sales) some of the best games out there. And sure, you might be one of those people who find that reviews don't necessarily determine if you enjoy a game, but its probably the best system out there to determine the quality of a video game (other than playing it yourself.)
So yes, people will reminisce about the "good old days" as with anything. Especially when the last game in the Diablo series was put out so long ago and its all people have to remember. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard is putting out worse games now than it was then and I'm sure D3 will be a game that in 10 years we'll be looking back on and saying "I wish games were still made like that."
The areas I have highlighted in bold are areas where I believe you missed my point. If you correspond to my previous replies you will find that I have listed the reasons why this game does not have the dedication to E-sports (in terms of infra-structure). Tell me ANOTHER e-sports game that when played on LAN Tourneys the players must actually connect to Exterior Blizzard servers thereby mitigating the Zero-Lag conditions provided by a LAN. Combine this simple fact with all the reasons I have listed for hating B.net2 and what we have is a compelling argument that Blizzard may MARKET a product yet not DEVELOP it as such. (Please look at my previous posts, I list the reasons why STarcraft 2 is inferior in terms of it being an esports platform compared to previous Blizzard games).
Secondly Starcraft 2 balance is VERY VERY unstable even at the present. They have been recent attempts to amend this by introducing new maps (They are still in testing unfortunately) as the previous maps encouraged Terran and Protoss users into 1-base all-ins (for which Zerg are finding it very difficult to play in a competitive environment). For evidence I would like to you briefly have a skim over the forums at www.teamliquid.net (as they have many threads with opinions from pro-gamers and various high level players).
I apologize in advance if I sound rude or bitchy but the points you have specifically raised are misleading, and some other just flat out wrong. If I may ask if you are an active Starcraft 2 player? Are you aware of the flaws of B.net2 yet you still claim it WAS SPECIFICALLY developed as an esports platform? Because if it was truly worthy successor to BW and a well designed and developed platform for e-sports why does it have region locking? Why does it have zero LAN-support? Why does it not foster clans/guilds (There is NO system in place for Clans/Guilds atm)? I mean isn't there where most of the people who partake in E-sports originate from? An online team of people who strive to become better at the game with mutual help from clan mates?
I am sorry I just cannot accept those reasons and if they are the reasons why I shouldn't be worried that Diablo 3 may become another Starcraft2-esque product then I am very worried.
You're just blinded and enrolled into exactly what they want if you believe they are any different than EA.
Right, because Blizzard, and all other corporations, are just trying to brainwash anyone. Even "back in the day" game companies, as any company, survived on the money it made. And then, as now, you had to put out high quality products to make money and gain relevance.
But when people like yourself just think there is nothing wrong with Blizzard, and defend them in such a way, I just die a little inside. SC2 and WoW are considered some of the best games out there? Yes, thats -exactly- the problem. Seems like not a lot of people here understand, or care to understand.
Whats exactly the problem? That the products that provide the most enjoyment are considered the best?
I mean, how one can not see that gaming has been ridiculed by companies in the last decade, and how one can defend Blizzard and think they don't do the same? No, Blizzard, EA, even Valve, they're all the same now.
If you have problems with the products of Blizzard and Valve, you probably have a problem with gaming in general. Which I don't agree with in the slightest, but everyone has their own opinion. I've played games for a long time now, and for me, games today are at least as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable than games from the past. Thats not always true, ie Red Alert compared to its sequels, but I enjoyed Half Life 2 more than Half Life 1, TF2 more than TF1, and Modern Warfare more than Call of Duty 1.
My point is, I prefer one to say "I don't care, I just buy the games and enjoy them", than try to defend Blizzard. You can just not care about the whole issue, there's still enjoyment to be found. But how one can defend them is beyond my understanding.
Sure, you can prefer that, but I'm not going to say something that I don't think is true. I would argue that the gaming industry has improved, and that a lot of opinions of today's gaming industry compared to the industry 10 years ago have been changed because all we remember now are the classics, and you forget that really there were plenty of cheap, low quality games out there. But thats why the people who made those games died off.
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.
Starcraft 2 is a decent game. However that's the problem, for a game that's been in development for nearly a decade it is very very underwhelming. First of all let's look at the infrastructure of Starcarft 2 which is the havok physics engine and Battle.net 2. The engine seems quite advanced yet and is probably more than enough. However my gripe is with the new Battle.net system. I could not believe my eyes when I first got into the beta and tried out the new Battle.net. The whole time I was thinking "What a piece of crap" Because let's be honest here, you CANNOT defend Battle.net2. It is just that bad. No Clan system (A feature that was in Warcraft 3 a game that came out half a decade before Starcraft 2), No Chat Channel on release (Seriously? It took them 6months to add a crappy pseudo-chat channel system), Region Locking (Thanks for restricting global e-sports more Blizzard), No LAN (For a game striving to the best e-sports vehicle on the market this is pretty fail) a VERY VERY mediocre single-player (I will look over this as Starcraft 2 is more about multiplayer, but yeah the campaign SUCKED balls), a very under-developed Zerg race (This 'opinion' is formed after watching all the interviews of top Zerg players globally [Idra, Nestea, Fruitdealer, LiquidRet, oGsZenio]) and above all it's basically copied everything in Brood War (Let me elaborate on this further down the post).
Keep in mind this is a game that's been in development for TEN fucking years. Is this acceptable? Should a company that USED to produce the greatest games on the planet be reduced to this? I am not saying Starcraft 2 is shit. I am saying its shit for a game thats been developed over a decade.
This is where I start worrying about Diablo 3. Seeing how badly Starcraft 2 turned out, what can we expect of Diablo 3? The gameplay footages we have acquired so far are fucking stellar (Not gonna lie, can i haz lazer beams?). The gameplay reviews of those who have played the alpha/pre-beta versions at Blizzcon/other gaming conventions are generally positive.
However take into account Starcraft 2 possessed all these features during its alpha/pre-beta. It's only when the beta hit did the shit-storm truly brew. Many pointed out the fact that Starcraft 2 encouraged non-macro, aggressive-cheesey builds. Now as a spectator game this is the worst thing ever. Every single game ending under 5minutes, games ending with Giant Ball vs Giant Ball, Zero micro, no need to macro. To use actual games as evidence, I would like to encourage everyone to watch Jaedong VS Flash on Blue Storm (Youtube.com, just type Jaedong vs Flash and you will get a plethora of high level awesomeness) which is considered one of the greatest games of Brood War ever. Now compare this to the greatest game of Starcraft 2 (Which isn't very fair considering how young Starcraft 2 is) IMMvP vs ST_Squirttle on Creavesse (GSTL Set 8).
The sheer difference in entertainment value between Brood war and Starcraft 2 is staggering. Simply put Starcraft 2 isn't very entertaining to watch (Starcraft 2 is broadcasted only via internet where as Brood War still has channels dedicated to bringing the games to your Televsion [If anyone says GSL is on Television I will stab them as GSL is only broadcasted over the net]).
This post is in the hopes that Diablo 3 does not end up like Starcraft 2. Which is a decent game but I have trouble accepting that it is an heir worthy of Brood War nor is it a game that displays a 10-year development cycle quality.
I am really hoping that Blizzard just fucking scraps Battle.net 2 because it is terrible. Why they would devote so much fucking time to implement facebook integration is beyond me (Starcraft 2 was delayed by 6months due what many believe were Blizzard's attempt at greater social network prescense [I know it's fucking pathetic]). IF (NOTICE THE IF) Diablo 3 happens to flop then we can safely conclude that maybe Blizzard's time is over and it would be time for them to fade away and make way for newer and more creative minds.
Also, the game wasn't 10 years in development, as it was the same team that made Warcraft III (The Frozen Throne was released 2003, right?) so it was more like 6-7 years in development. Considering how polished the end-product was (barely any optimization issues) and how few bugs it had, i'll dare to say they did a pretty good job.
Now on the "more of the same" part, i agree with you. They removed tons of units, added very few others but that was a decision they made to keep the game relatively balanced. It's not even 1 year out and it's already doing very well in terms of balance. As for rushes and cheese... they're encouraged but not overpowered. Those that fail to scout are bound to lose. But those that scout and respond usually beat their opponents.
Not sure where you live that you used to have Starcraft broadcasted on TV, but except for Korea, i don't think they had games broadcasted anywhere.
Now Diablo III is a whole different kind of game. There's no need to make it e-sport friendly. It's all about making it interesting and cool. I won't judge the game as it still has some time till it's released, but so far i can hope for something really good.
On the battle.net 2 matter, all i can say is that i find it more user friendly than the original. The matchmaking system is awesome too. I hated having to look for games and always getting smacked by players better than myself cause it wasn't clear which league i should be playing against... not that much fun, right?
PS. Welcome to the forums and keep posting!
StarCraft 2 is a product that, marketing wise, hit the spot. I had a discussion today about "Are games art?". And they are, but... what do the likes of Blizzard do with them? They use them to get money. Its the obvious goal of any business, but this is beyond that. An art should remain an art, and StarCraft 2 is not. However, the people, the customers are to blame for this more than the companies themselves.
Because they made SC2 possible. Lets ask this: Why such an average game like StarCraft 2 make such an impact? People all over the world get screwed over daily by this kind of pathetic gaming trend.
Sorry, I think I'm losing focus here. StarCraft 2 had one single minded intention: To create and control esports. With it, came a pathetic single player campaign (well, its FUN, in my opinion. But the story is pathetic.). Its all about money.
Every single action on their part is about CONTROL and MONEY. Nothing else.
There was no risk taken anywhere. The multiplayer is bland and limited. There is little depth, because everything was created to be balanced exactly for used as esport. If anyone ever witnessed the evolution of gaming competitions, they would know that competitives games have depths when all elements in it are not sewed so carefully, and instead risks are taken.
Now, I've lost myself writing this, so I'll just say that: I don't believe Diablo 3's fate is quite the same. D3 is not going to be milked as an esport game. However, it is looking like it might be aimed at the more casual gamers. But honestly, I don't really know what to expect. We'll have to see.
This is the new age of gaming. It has been so for quite some time. Its like following a music group of say, rock, that you love and live for, and after the years they move on to rap, because rap sells better. Its not about if you prefer rock or rap here, point is: Its not about doing what is artistically the best, its not about making great games. Its just, and only, about making sure they bring as much money as possible home.
You're a fool if you believe they have any other goals than this. The quality and quantity of whatever they make, is in the form it is only, and only because that is all it needs to get us to buy it en masse.
Just enough cheese to make the mouse bite.
Now I'm not saying nobody at all cares about the quality of the game. But its not a goal. I'm sure there are some eager developers or producers behind that would love their games to be a certain way. But you cannot fathom the limitations and cut they are imposed. No way will a game project go anywhere beyond what it needs to be to sell well. Its a waste of money to do so.
Now I'm just talking too much. I'm done.
Diablo 3 on the other hand is no where near, and has no ambitions of being an E-Sport, Jay said himself SC2 covered that. Diablo is a hack and slash omg that guys head just came off -jizz in pants- game. The lore of Diablo is pretty open, and isn't expected to followed 100% through into the game detail for detail either, no that SC2 was. Given what we've seen, and the coverage we've had, I think you should be confident they'll pull through with flying colors.
All i am saying is look at the quality decrease between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft2.
Warcraft 3 has
-Global Access to all four b.net services
-LAN support
-Unlimited Publishing for map makers
-Clan Support (Seriously how the fuck does Starcraft 2 not have this yet? A game that markets itself as an "e-sport vehicle" doesn't have support for clans? Seriously who can defend this pont?)
-Chat rooms that could be privately moderated / no player cap (Very good for online tournament organizers)
-Organized Ladder tourneys (Yes there were monthly ladder tourneys in 3 brackets (1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3) Starcraft 2 has ZERO b.net run tourneys.
-Automated Matchmaking for all divisions.
Now let's see what Starcraft 2 (b.net2) brings to the table that Warcraft 3 doesn't.
-Facebook integration
-? (Seriously I tried my hardest to think of a facet that B.net2 offers that War3 B.net did not offer)
Now from this we can see the quality of the online services offered by Blizzard has decreased quite a bit between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2(These are the two most modern games that use the B.net system [Although WoW uses the same infrastructure for hosting its realms, they are said to be developed differently to what Starcraft/Diablo/Warcraft RTS uses]).
If someone can convince me that the direction of Blizzard games hasn't decreased using evidence such as: Status of B.net, Status of Single-player, Status of Accessibility to many regions (which is essential to foster global connectivity)
But what I did know for sure about the multiplayer is that I'd never be that great at it. It's not a game you can play very casually online and still play to win. I really just got the game for its single player campaign and I think I was a little naive in my expectations for it. The story...wasn't actually that bad. I mean I felt it had a bit too many parallels to the story of WC3, and after Kerrigan's incessant trash talking in SC1 and Brood Wars I really did wanna see Tychus put a bullet in her head, but besides that it was a fun space adventure with some interesting plot elements and not too many contrived twists.
It was hard though from mission to mission just to bask in the game and take my sweet time with it. I know the game developers were really proud of the campaign and how each mission had its own unique dynamic to it. And initially I was really impressed too. But after finishing the campaign so quickly, not because it wasn't challenging enough, but just because the missions were always rushing you along it felt, I just felt kind of bummed out it was all over. And I figured, well, I can't play the Zerg and Protoss campaigns yet so I guess this means I have to force myself to get into multiplayer if I'm to continue to enjoy and get my money's worth out of this game.
Each mission you had to do a thing quickly before A escpaed or B destroyed the planet or C got more minerals than you. Speaking of that mission where you have to get more minerals before that other guy first so you can buy the mercenaries contract, once you do, you're faced with a standard mission more akin to the original SC. Where the goal now was just to eliminate the enemy's base and you had all the time in the world to do it. Seems great except the moment you start that half of the mission you have more than enough units needed already just to go wipe them out. I was like, "Sweet I got the minerals! Just barely! Now I'm gonna enjoy building up my army gradually and fending off intermittent attacks until I have what's necessary to take out the enemy base." But no, my fun was ruined when suddenly I have this huge fuck off army right away and it wasn't even a challenge.
Like, yes it was nice in SC2 campaign that they mixed things up. But I also missed the grind of SC. The kind of grind that took hours and I had to destroy every single last supply depot to pass the mission. It's not like I wanted it all the time in SC2, but give me at least a few straightforward missions where I build my army from practically nothing and go in bit by bit to wipe the enemy off the map. But everything was so hurried and rushed. I did like the mission though where you have to enter the Protoss nullification field to get that artifact thingy. That mission was the kind of grind I was hoping for. It's one of the few I'll replay still.
So anyway, I feebly have made attempts now and again to get good at the multiplayer game but I just don't have the condescending teenage voice within me to ever be that good at it. "Oh what's that? Build a supply depot by the ramp? Got it...sorry." No, that's me responding to that teenager with the annoying voice.
It seems to me that most people who were in it for the multiplayer really got their money's worth while the campaign to them was just kind of a bonus thing on the side for when they were bored. But I think serious online SC2 players don't really bother with the campaign cause it dulls your multiplayer skills. I got so used to all the cool units I could have in the missions that I just didn't seem to know how to adapt to the multiplayer where I was robbed of almost everything righteous. But I get it. I'm just not good at the multiplayer. I can live with that. I only wished I got more replayability out of the campaign or that the campaign was more important to the developers to release all three races at once.
Nevertheless, I don't think any misgivings I've had about SC2 have carried over to Diablo 3. They are in fact very different games with a totally different team developing them. I'm confident also that the balance between multiplayer and single player will be well done. That's the kind of balance that concerns me most here anyway. The one between a good multiplayer and single player experience. Cause sometimes I will want to just explore on my own. Other times, I wanna join up with friends or kill other players.
But I think I can inarguably say that SC2's single player and multiplayer experiences are highly disproportionate of each other.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I don't think there's anything wrong about your arguments against SC2. What I'm wondering though is what that necessarily has to do with Diablo. Not what it has to do with, but what it necessarily has to do with. And consider also just how the entire gaming industry has changed so much over the years anyway when you answer that.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I agree with some things you said about SC2 even though I don't know as much about multiplayer. And yes, Blizzard has changed as was inevitable. I suspect you, like myself at times, am also just nostalgic for that era of the gaming industry. Not that I think that's the only reason for your complaints.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
no change after i played starcraft 2
Ah I apologize, in the future I will strive to read a bit more vigorously and accurately. I do sincerely hope Diablo 3 is the game we have been waiting a decade for. I do not understand some of the thought process that is going on at Blizzard HQ.
HOWEVER as many have noted, Starcraft 2 IS a different game from Diablo 3 and it is unfair to make any conclusions on any faults Diablo 3 may have by looking at the short comings of Starcraft 2.
Here's a pessimist (i know we are the worst kind of people) hoping that the days of ol' shall return to us as we hack ourselves through the gates of hell.
And no, I don't think Blizzard has lost its magic at all. Starcraft 2 offered enough changes in terms of units and a much needed update in graphics, AI, and all those other things that change with a decade of game making. If it had been changed much more from SC1, there would have been outrage. The game is simply considered perfect by so many people, so Blizzard didn't have much room for innovation, especially considering their goal to make it an E-Sport. What they did do is create an excellent example of the current RTS without innovating all that much. They achieved their goal of making a good, very well balanced game, that doesn't really upset the diehard fans of SC1. Unfortunately, the game they had to almost constrain to was made ten years ago, so it made SC2 seem unimpressive to some. I personally don't agree, but I do see where people are coming from. In my mind, the new units and mechanics (such as new sight lines) are just enough to make it seem like a sequel. After all, its not like sequels are really ever that much different from the original.
In terms of Diablo 3, their goal is clearly to incorporate a large amount of things that weren't in the previous games. As such, no, I'm not that worried about D3, and if anything the quality of SC2 made me more confident that D3 will be good. Think what you will, as everyone has their own opinion, but the game has sold 4.5 million copies and got a 93% on Metacritic. Its at least considered a good game by the general populous. Now, it would obviously suck if D3 came out to rave reviews and huge sales, but in your opinion it sucks. But it does shot that as far as quality of product, Blizzard is still putting out games that are considered excellent by most people.
What I do think has happened is that people have found a way to hate Blizzard through World of Warcraft. In the end, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, every company out there exists solely based on the money it makes. And its not like Blizzard is just pumping out crappy games and has turned into something like EA. SC2 and WoW are considered (again, by critics/sales) some of the best games out there. And sure, you might be one of those people who find that reviews don't necessarily determine if you enjoy a game, but its probably the best system out there to determine the quality of a video game (other than playing it yourself.)
So yes, people will reminisce about the "good old days" as with anything. Especially when the last game in the Diablo series was put out so long ago and its all people have to remember. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard is putting out worse games now than it was then and I'm sure D3 will be a game that in 10 years we'll be looking back on and saying "I wish games were still made like that."
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
You're just blinded and enrolled into exactly what they want if you believe they are any different than EA.
I'm sorry, this topic is sad. That people find enjoyment in SC2 is certainly their right and in fact, I enjoyed it too. Its a lovely little world and not everybody has to care about what's happening to the gaming world to that level.
But when people like yourself just think there is nothing wrong with Blizzard, and defend them in such a way, I just die a little inside. SC2 and WoW are considered some of the best games out there? Yes, thats -exactly- the problem. Seems like not a lot of people here understand, or care to understand.
I mean, how one can not see that gaming has been ridiculed by companies in the last decade, and how one can defend Blizzard and think they don't do the same? No, Blizzard, EA, even Valve, they're all the same now.
My point is, I prefer one to say "I don't care, I just buy the games and enjoy them", than try to defend Blizzard. You can just not care about the whole issue, there's still enjoyment to be found. But how one can defend them is beyond my understanding.
The areas I have highlighted in bold are areas where I believe you missed my point. If you correspond to my previous replies you will find that I have listed the reasons why this game does not have the dedication to E-sports (in terms of infra-structure). Tell me ANOTHER e-sports game that when played on LAN Tourneys the players must actually connect to Exterior Blizzard servers thereby mitigating the Zero-Lag conditions provided by a LAN. Combine this simple fact with all the reasons I have listed for hating B.net2 and what we have is a compelling argument that Blizzard may MARKET a product yet not DEVELOP it as such. (Please look at my previous posts, I list the reasons why STarcraft 2 is inferior in terms of it being an esports platform compared to previous Blizzard games).
Secondly Starcraft 2 balance is VERY VERY unstable even at the present. They have been recent attempts to amend this by introducing new maps (They are still in testing unfortunately) as the previous maps encouraged Terran and Protoss users into 1-base all-ins (for which Zerg are finding it very difficult to play in a competitive environment). For evidence I would like to you briefly have a skim over the forums at www.teamliquid.net (as they have many threads with opinions from pro-gamers and various high level players).
I apologize in advance if I sound rude or bitchy but the points you have specifically raised are misleading, and some other just flat out wrong. If I may ask if you are an active Starcraft 2 player? Are you aware of the flaws of B.net2 yet you still claim it WAS SPECIFICALLY developed as an esports platform? Because if it was truly worthy successor to BW and a well designed and developed platform for e-sports why does it have region locking? Why does it have zero LAN-support? Why does it not foster clans/guilds (There is NO system in place for Clans/Guilds atm)? I mean isn't there where most of the people who partake in E-sports originate from? An online team of people who strive to become better at the game with mutual help from clan mates?
I am sorry I just cannot accept those reasons and if they are the reasons why I shouldn't be worried that Diablo 3 may become another Starcraft2-esque product then I am very worried.
Whats exactly the problem? That the products that provide the most enjoyment are considered the best?
If you have problems with the products of Blizzard and Valve, you probably have a problem with gaming in general. Which I don't agree with in the slightest, but everyone has their own opinion. I've played games for a long time now, and for me, games today are at least as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable than games from the past. Thats not always true, ie Red Alert compared to its sequels, but I enjoyed Half Life 2 more than Half Life 1, TF2 more than TF1, and Modern Warfare more than Call of Duty 1.
Sure, you can prefer that, but I'm not going to say something that I don't think is true. I would argue that the gaming industry has improved, and that a lot of opinions of today's gaming industry compared to the industry 10 years ago have been changed because all we remember now are the classics, and you forget that really there were plenty of cheap, low quality games out there. But thats why the people who made those games died off.
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.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Actually, it goes back to the early 70s.