|
On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals?
Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying.
|
On January 05 2013 07:54 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 06:40 naastyOne wrote:On January 05 2013 00:12 maybenexttime wrote: I am here because blizzard killed BW in Korea, and I want to get a worthy successor. SC2 is not one, by a mile. And before you say they did not kill BW - they accepted KeSPA's terms when it comes to SC2 in ProLeague while giving KeSPA ridiculous, unacceptable demands a couple of years earlier as far as BW broadcasts go, and sued KeSPA over them. Well, for a small minority it is not, but considering SC2 fanbase everywhere exept for korea are basically people thet were not fans of BW in the first place, Blizzard could not care less. Half of which already left the game, while BW and WC3 were growing after release. The usual answer to this will be [not by me] "but but but the viewer numbers increase and there are more people watching SC2 than there were ever watching BW" ... and this is the point: - BW was a game made for people to play and just have a bit of fun; - SC2 is a game made for people to watch as an eSport.
No point to buy it unless you really want to play the game and that probably means you are playing with a somewhat competitive "I want to be better" mindset and not an "I want to just have a laugh on a wild BGH game" one. With all the gimmicky and powerful armies in SC2 there never will be an equally fun BGH map ever ... unless it is modded heavily.
|
On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying.
dont be sorry ur absolutely right. In the end I enjoy sc2. I mean even in an interview of a broodwar dev he said tht the gamewas so half assed, yet its one of the most loved games of all time (and a huge profit earner). Every business is in it for the money and the only reason they didnt choose another business is because they just enjoy games. They r just hitting 2 bird with one stone.
|
|
On January 05 2013 08:18 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 07:54 maybenexttime wrote:On January 05 2013 06:40 naastyOne wrote:On January 05 2013 00:12 maybenexttime wrote: I am here because blizzard killed BW in Korea, and I want to get a worthy successor. SC2 is not one, by a mile. And before you say they did not kill BW - they accepted KeSPA's terms when it comes to SC2 in ProLeague while giving KeSPA ridiculous, unacceptable demands a couple of years earlier as far as BW broadcasts go, and sued KeSPA over them. Well, for a small minority it is not, but considering SC2 fanbase everywhere exept for korea are basically people thet were not fans of BW in the first place, Blizzard could not care less. Half of which already left the game, while BW and WC3 were growing after release. The usual answer to this will be [not by me] "but but but the viewer numbers increase and there are more people watching SC2 than there were ever watching BW" ... and this is the point: - BW was a game made for people to play and just have a bit of fun; - SC2 is a game made for people to watch as an eSport. No point to buy it unless you really want to play the game and that probably means you are playing with a somewhat competitive "I want to be better" mindset and not an "I want to just have a laugh on a wild BGH game" one. With all the gimmicky and powerful armies in SC2 there never will be an equally fun BGH map ever ... unless it is modded heavily.
If it's made for watching, why does it have less spectator value than BW? Most people would argue that it's better to play than to watch, I believe.
|
On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying.
I think the only way to interpret that statement is that the game company is interested in appealing to as many casual gamers as possible; so the quality of the game will suffer from the perspective of the hardcore gamer. That is, instead of dealing with the core problems of the game (deathballs and overall simplicity of gameplay and unit types), Blizzard instead chooses to take an easier path of simple fixes by adding exciting sounding units and hollywood-style story that would appeal to the majority of gamers who don't expect too much from their games.
I personally find it hard to believe. I think Blizzard is trying their best...its just that they're not as good as they used to be. I'm pretty sure when Blizzard North left...most of the talent left. That's why we had Diablo 3, and SC2. Completely different designers and teams. They know that the success of SC2 depends on its quality...I think that they would very much like to create a second brood war, its just hard for a new team to duplicate this previous success by a different team.
This SC2 team seems more attracted to fun sounding units instead, and a somewhat cliche hollywood story. Its unsurprising considering Dustin Browder created Red Alert 2, I can see some similarity between the games.
|
won't be buying it at its current state
|
i will buy it for the campaign and grinding at first. then after a month ill probably hop back on dota2. sc2 has no replayability no matter how you look at it
|
Probably I will not buy any blizzard game anymore. No more money from me. Thanks.
|
On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying.
This. People are so ignorant and often we see people blaming Activision for the "failures" of d3 and the mediocricity of sc2. This has nothing to do with Activision. Blizzard is just a company with an awfull work culturue. This has probably arisen because they ahve been a monopoly for such a long time, thus they have gotten used to be lazy and hasn't got punished for it.
If they chose to maximize profit though they would have redesigned the business model, but do to their incomepentices they haven't done that.
|
On January 05 2013 08:09 Scila wrote: No point to buying HOTS as Terran. Everyone actually gets fun new units and changes, we get a gimmicky mine and the same shitty late game. Blizzard has lost their quality.
Actually it's not much better for Zerg. Effectively, Viper and Hydra Speed is the only new stuff that we get. Swarm Hosts are a complete niche unit in their current state and almost nobody plays them anymore. I probably haven't seen a single Swarm Host in the last two weeks.
|
On January 05 2013 20:50 .syd. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 08:09 Scila wrote: No point to buying HOTS as Terran. Everyone actually gets fun new units and changes, we get a gimmicky mine and the same shitty late game. Blizzard has lost their quality. Actually it's not much better for Zerg. Effectively, Viper and Hydra Speed is the only new stuff that we get. Swarm Hosts are a complete niche unit in their current state and almost nobody plays them anymore. I probably haven't seen a single Swarm Host in the last two weeks.
People dont understand how to use the SH at the moment. I have some nice strategy with huge success using 5-6 swarm hosts. I guess the pros will find even better ways to use them.
SH make zerg able to force the opponent to do something. Something zerg was missing in WoL.
|
At least zerg have a bit more variation during their mid game now, which makes for a bit more fun TvZ. But then when late game hits the games just ends up just like WoL, with brood lord/infestor and now viper then insta remax tech switch to ling ultra with spine walls around every base and endless bank. And you don't have any more answers to this design error in the expansion than you had in WoL 1 year ago.
Even more sad when you see korean progamers talk on twitter how boring and shit HotS Terran is. And they play for money. What a motivation dump it has to be for them.
|
On January 05 2013 19:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying. This. People are so ignorant and often we see people blaming Activision for the "failures" of d3 and the mediocricity of sc2. This has nothing to do with Activision. Blizzard is just a company with an awfull work culturue. This has probably arisen because they ahve been a monopoly for such a long time, thus they have gotten used to be lazy and hasn't got punished for it. If they chose to maximize profit though they would have redesigned the business model, but do to their incomepentices they haven't done that. Yep ... only Blizzard and their army of blind and unthinking fanboys can pull off delivering such a terrible game and still make a profit from it. The "I will buy HotS regardless" poll shows that clearly enough ... consumers arent doing their job of being responsible. I dont know the scene, but maybe Halo could pull off something similar without being punished for it, but apart from that?
|
I'm surprised how many people are sure that HotS is going to be a success. A website like this is where the most hardcore fans of the game congregate and 30% say they aren't going to buy the game.
|
On January 05 2013 23:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 19:52 Hider wrote:On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying. This. People are so ignorant and often we see people blaming Activision for the "failures" of d3 and the mediocricity of sc2. This has nothing to do with Activision. Blizzard is just a company with an awfull work culturue. This has probably arisen because they ahve been a monopoly for such a long time, thus they have gotten used to be lazy and hasn't got punished for it. If they chose to maximize profit though they would have redesigned the business model, but do to their incomepentices they haven't done that. Yep ... only Blizzard and their army of blind and unthinking fanboys can pull off delivering such a terrible game and still make a profit from it. The "I will buy HotS regardless" poll shows that clearly enough ... consumers arent doing their job of being responsible. I dont know the scene, but maybe Halo could pull off something similar without being punished for it, but apart from that? Don't equate people who said they would buy HotS with "blind and unthinking fanboys". WoL is my favorite game, I have put countless hours into it, and if I put even 5% of the time I put into WoL into HotS (which I will, since the beta has been a lot of fun so far), it'd be worth $40 to me. And for the record, I didn't buy D3 or WoW, I barely played the original SC and BW, and played Diablo and D2 a bit, but not nearly as much as I've played WoL. On the "Halo" comparison, I was a huge Halo fan for the first 3 installments, but Halo: Reach was too much like CoD and not as fun for me so I stopped playing and then didn't even buy Halo 4.
The level of hate and disdain for SC2 on TL is beyond me. Sure it's not a perfect game, but it sure is a fun game to play and to watch. I'm not "blind and unthinking". I have fun playing the game. I will for sure buy HotS.
|
Vatican City State334 Posts
I basically can't see myself buying ay Blizzard game until creative control is removed from Chris Metzen and someone with fresh ideas takes his spot. Blizzard games are no longer must-buy.
|
On January 05 2013 19:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying. This. People are so ignorant and often we see people blaming Activision for the "failures" of d3 and the mediocricity of sc2. This has nothing to do with Activision. Blizzard is just a company with an awfull work culturue. This has probably arisen because they ahve been a monopoly for such a long time, thus they have gotten used to be lazy and hasn't got punished for it. If they chose to maximize profit though they would have redesigned the business model, but do to their incomepentices they haven't done that. If Blizzard is sooo terrible, why do they still have a monopoly?
Wouldn`t onle of dosens of RTS that came out in 200x-2012 take the crown away?
Or maybe the BW hardcore fans would just finally get that they are not quite the target audience of SC2, and move along, saving people that enjoy the game all the whinking.
After all, there certainly should be a company that would find out the oh so big demand for a "true BW succesor" and cash in on that, right? Rught??
On January 05 2013 23:14 Bodhi wrote: I'm surprised how many people are sure that HotS is going to be a success. A website like this is where the most hardcore fans of the game congregate and 30% say they aren't going to buy the game. This website is a base of the most hardcore SC:BW community outside Korea, Since SC2 is not SC:BW2, a lot of that fanbase is upset, and viral.
|
On January 06 2013 00:58 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 19:52 Hider wrote:On January 05 2013 08:13 Avalain wrote:On January 02 2013 17:47 imBLIND wrote:
Summary-I don't know what kind of politics are going on in the development of this game, but the end result is showing us they don't really have a direction for this game other than "money money money". If this game is going to follow in the footsteps of D3...then god be with us all.
I'm just wondering, what direction do game companies go that is "money money money"? Is there a way to make money by developing bad games that no one wants? Or is the direction that you're talking about the "do something that is enjoyable to the largest number of people" which is potentially casuals? Sorry, I'm just a little irritated when people make these sorts of comments. They are completely meaningless. Yes, companies are in the business of making money. It's true for every company and game developers are no different. Plus, ideals such as "improved customer experience" can be rolled into your whole "money money money" paradigm. Do you know how a company moves away from making money? They make a bad game that nobody bothers buying. This. People are so ignorant and often we see people blaming Activision for the "failures" of d3 and the mediocricity of sc2. This has nothing to do with Activision. Blizzard is just a company with an awfull work culturue. This has probably arisen because they ahve been a monopoly for such a long time, thus they have gotten used to be lazy and hasn't got punished for it. If they chose to maximize profit though they would have redesigned the business model, but do to their incomepentices they haven't done that. If Blizzard is sooo terrible, why do they still have a monopoly? Wouldn`t onle of dosens of RTS that came out in 200x-2012 take the crown away? Or maybe the BW hardcore fans would just finally get that they are not quite the target audience of SC2, and move along, saving people that enjoy the game all the whinking. After all, there certainly should be a company that would find out the oh so big demand for a "true BW succesor" and cash in on that, right? Rught?? Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 23:14 Bodhi wrote: I'm surprised how many people are sure that HotS is going to be a success. A website like this is where the most hardcore fans of the game congregate and 30% say they aren't going to buy the game. This website is a base of the most hardcore SC:BW community outside Korea, Since SC2 is not SC:BW2, a lot of that fanbase is upset, and viral.
BW fans are not the only people who say SC2 has several gameplay flaws. There's a consensus in the SC2 community regarding certain gameplay aspects.
|
On January 05 2013 23:14 Bodhi wrote: I'm surprised how many people are sure that HotS is going to be a success. A website like this is where the most hardcore fans of the game congregate and 30% say they aren't going to buy the game.
The opinion of TL is not representative of the larger SC2 community. The quiet majority who either play the game, or don't, without feeling the need to repetitively tell everyone about it. Don't mistake one for the other. The TL community, especially in these sorts of discussion, reminds me of people who jack off to themselves in front of a mirror. So much for the TL community.
|
|
|
|