• 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by JasonR86 (9726 posts) -

I have no idea because I've never played a Blizzard game.

#102 Edited by SuperiorArmbar (29 posts) -

@Hunter5024: IMO they have just played it safe (with the exception of WoW) and released the same exact games from SC1 onwards. Their games are alright but they do get way to much credit. Hell they canceled Ghost probably out of fear of the unknown

#103 Posted by wreakOnes (48 posts) -

Blizzard is kind of like Apple to me. They make extremely high quality products though I don't think they should receive as much praise as they do. Mostly do to shoddy business practices and lack of actual innovation. People shouldn't be so hopelessly loyal to a brand when they release a new phone every year or they exert complete control of the product you just purchased via DRM.

#104 Posted by me3639 (1849 posts) -

Do not get me wrong, Blizzard is great but they are like Nintendo IMO. They tread out a lot of the same old with new paint and a couple new ideas, but the story and play remain mostly intact.

#105 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4882 posts) -

Blizzard only made one truly amazing game. The fact that it helped define my childhood gaming displays no bias in any way whatsoever.

As far as I can see, Blizzard coasts by on nostalgia. The fact that both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 took as long as they did is a strong indicator that the studio is either:

A) ran by morons

B) ran by lazy motherfuckers

When Valve took six years to make Half-Life 2, they were inventing modern physics, defining how to use the environment to communicate a story to the player, and wrestling with crafting their own engine. They were practically reinventing a genre (again). Oh, and the whole "Steam" thing. And yet when I look at what Blizzard did in the years they spent on either SC2 or Diablo 3, all I see are a bunch of people following archaic blueprints that haven't been updated in a decade. People harp on sports games for rehashing the same game annually, but apparently it's okay to rehash when you only release a game a decade. The worst part though, has nothing to do with the games themselves.

The fact is, Blizzard is doing some frightening shit with DRM in Diablo 3, as well as the possible ramifications of their real money auction house. People being so quick to trust this developer, and in turn scrutinize those who voice their suspicion, also concern me. It's Activision Blizzard, not the other way around. The fact is that Activision Blizzard in the position to determine the course of single player games on the PC. That worries me, considering their master's name is Bobby Kotick, and not Gabe Newell. Considering everything that has been dragged kicking and screaming to light over the past couple of weeks, I don't want those thugs dictating jack shit about the future of single player games.

#106 Edited by Beaudacious (934 posts) -

Janky Innovation is the Core of PC Gaming, this is how many Mod's have become full fledged games, and how mods have redefined genre's.

The fact that today's market requires every game to be absolutely polished to perfection represents the decline of innovation in the gaming industry. This is how we end up with yearly franchises, where its exponentially easier to iterate on a franchise then a bold new concept.

Thankfully these Janky Innovative games are holding steady on PC. Can you ever imagine Mount and Blade, and DayZ being released in their janky forms if all we had was consoles? Or if all Game Developers had production pipeline's similar to Blizzard?

The problem with Blizzard is that they have the resources to be boring, ignore innovation, and simply polish stale concepts to high degree's. Basically Blizzard is a fat glutinous developer set in its ways. (Doesn't mean their stupid, far from it.)

Also the important thing to understand is that the masses that purchase Blizzard games aren't the core gaming demographic of PC gaming. The main blizzard demographic amounts to a FarmVille-esque demographic where they basically purchase one blizzard game and play that for the next 6 years, be it WoW, StarCraft, or Diablo.

These people don't go and buy Mount and Blade, or Battlefield 3, I feel like there's two demographics. There's the regular gamer's on PC, and then there's the Blizzard devote's. Yes there is overlap like with every demographic, but I believe the larger groups hold. I think this is why Blizzard is so successful, it has essential created its own sub-market.

There are a lot of people out there who have only played social media games, and Blizzard games.

Personally I think the Blizzard method is harmful to PC Gaming, but others will say it helps reaffirm PC gaming.

#107 Posted by scalpel (314 posts) -

In a league of their own.

#108 Edited by TentPole (1858 posts) -

@Beaudacious said:

Janky Innovation is the Core of PC Gaming, this is how many Mod's have become full fledged games, and how mods have redefined genre's.

The fact that today's market requires every game to be absolutely polished to perfection represents the decline of innovation in the gaming industry. This is how we end up with yearly franchises, where its exponentially easier to iterate on a franchise then a bold new concept.

Thankfully these Janky Innovative games are holding steady on PC. Can you ever imagine Mount and Blade, and DayZ being released in their janky forms if all we had was consoles? Or if all Game Developers had production pipeline's similar to Blizzard?

The problem with Blizzard is that they have the resources to be boring, ignore innovation, and simply polish stale concepts to high degree's. Basically Blizzard is a fat glutinous developer set in its ways. (Doesn't mean their stupid, far from it.)

Also the important thing to understand is that the masses that purchase Blizzard games aren't the core gaming demographic of PC gaming. The main blizzard demographic amounts to a FarmVille-esque demographic where they basically purchase one blizzard game and play that for the next 6 years, be it WoW, StarCraft, or Diablo.

These people don't go and buy Mount and Blade, or Battlefield 3, I feel like there's two demographics. There's the regular gamer's on PC, and then there's the Blizzard devote's. Yes there is overlap like with every demographic, but I believe the larger groups hold. I think this is why Blizzard is so successful, it has essential created its own sub-market.

There are a lot of people out there who have only played social media games, and Blizzard games.

Personally I think the Blizzard method is harmful to PC Gaming, but others will say it helps reaffirm PC gaming.

Foolish thing to say. Blizzard clearly has both the "dedicated" and "casual" demographics, and not just overlap. They just don't have you.

Also, fuck PC snobbery.

#109 Posted by Deusx (1910 posts) -

They make good polished games. That doesn´t mean I respect them as developers. Games like wow are what I tend to avoid when playing games, they are ethically wrong.

#110 Posted by crusader8463 (14428 posts) -

Not a fan of Blizzard. I just don't care for their games. I find their settings, characters, and story to almost always be extremely uninteresting and their design choices in gameplay are never to my liking.The only Blizzard game I ever got any enjoyment out of was Warcraft 3, and even that was only up to the parts where it all become about micromanaging hero units. They can make some snazzy cut scenes though.

Dam it! Now I'm dying to play an RTS but I got none to play. Curse you!

#111 Edited by Beaudacious (934 posts) -

@TentPole: Selective reading is quite the talent on these forums.

Also fact isn't PC snobbery. Why are new developers told to develop for PC? Why is Steam essentially turning indie garage studios into real businesses. Why are indie developers selling direct on websites for PC's? Why are PC gamers investing hundred of thousands of dollars into kick-starter projects. Because PC gamers reward innovation, and creativity on a degree not as easily accessible on consoles. As well console gamers seem to reward AAA polish a-la Gears, Halo, AC which requires millions of dollars to produce, more so then innovative/creative games.

This isn't an insult its simply the state of the industry. If you love creative games a $500 PC can get you playing numerous games you'd never see on consoles. There's hope for consoles yet with their respective digital markets, but other then 1 or 2 titles a year those markets are quite a bore. Hopefully this next generation drastically revamps the digital submitting process on consoles.

Secondly:

" Blizzard clearly has both the "dedicated" and "casual" demographics, and not just overlap"

So overlap between what? The first part of you sentence addresses your interpretation of my point between dedicated/casual gamers, while the second part addresses my actual view of the Bliizzard sub-category as a subject. The issue is that this comparison makes little sense, since first you assume I'm simply discussing dedicated vs. casual, while in the second part you acknowledge I'm addressing the Blizzard sub-category.

Now assuming you are simply being foolish, and making a fumbled statement; Blizzard has both dedicated and casual demographics, not just the overlap between dedicated and casual. So then essentially blizzard has a dedicated/casual demographic, congratulations sir your contribution is noteworthy. I'm fairly sure this second interpretation isn't the case since that would be quite a foolish, inebriated statement.

#112 Edited by TentPole (1858 posts) -

Sorry. I guess I didn't really mean "dedicated" and "casual" demographics. What I really meant was @Beaudacious said:

FarmVille-esque demographic

And

core gaming demographic

Because those are different.

Oh wait, You are an idiot.

EDIT: I just wan't to emphasize that I am calling you an idiot mostly because I am a hostile asshole that has called half of the giant bomb user base idiots. It is not personal.