• 195 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Posted by Dezztroy (804 posts) -
@gamefreak9 said:

@Scrawnto said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@Dezztroy said:

@gamefreak9: Every single thing you said had been done years before Blizzard did them. Doesn't mean their games are bad. They're not. They just never bring anything new to the genres.

go ahead and name where it has been done.

I could be wrong, but I think Supreme Commander had super units that could be hit by both ground and air attacks. Red Alert three had an air/ground transforming unit. Almost every RTS has units that only attack air or only attack ground.

I don't recall about Super units but no that transformation is not the same. Theres the viking which is both, but the phoinix makes the ENEMY units from ground to air and enables air attack only units to attack ground units. I never said only air and only ground attack, I said units that attack in a straight(vertical) line in front of them as splash, and units that attack in a horizontal line in front of them. Or for instance, an air transport that also heals is also never been done, there's usually ground units, heart of the swarm will also add a unit that Pulls units to it. The vortex is also an innovation, a stun that affects friendly and unfriendly, whilst making them invulnerable and compressing the space they take to a 2by2 block.

I find it hilarious that you said I was the one who didn't know what innovation is.
 
I rest my case.
#52 Posted by CheapPoison (733 posts) -

Strategy games.

And terrible balance when not talking about strategy games.

#53 Edited by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@Dezztroy said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@Scrawnto said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@Dezztroy said:

@gamefreak9: Every single thing you said had been done years before Blizzard did them. Doesn't mean their games are bad. They're not. They just never bring anything new to the genres.

go ahead and name where it has been done.

I could be wrong, but I think Supreme Commander had super units that could be hit by both ground and air attacks. Red Alert three had an air/ground transforming unit. Almost every RTS has units that only attack air or only attack ground.

I don't recall about Super units but no that transformation is not the same. Theres the viking which is both, but the phoinix makes the ENEMY units from ground to air and enables air attack only units to attack ground units. I never said only air and only ground attack, I said units that attack in a straight(vertical) line in front of them as splash, and units that attack in a horizontal line in front of them. Or for instance, an air transport that also heals is also never been done, there's usually ground units, heart of the swarm will also add a unit that Pulls units to it. The vortex is also an innovation, a stun that affects friendly and unfriendly, whilst making them invulnerable and compressing the space they take to a 2by2 block.

I find it hilarious that you said I was the one who didn't know what innovation is. I rest my case.

Ok try and define video game innovation for me.

#54 Posted by Dezztroy (804 posts) -
@gamefreak9: Nah thanks, I'm good.
#55 Posted by Scrawnto (2452 posts) -

@gamefreak9: Ah, your wording was a bit imprecise there, so I misunderstood you. I generally take vertical to mean perpendicular to the ground, and horizontal to mean parallel to the ground, rather than forward and to the sides as you apparently meant. And "a unit that transforms ground unit into aerial" made me think you had omitted "from a" between transforms and ground. My mistake there.

#56 Edited by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@Dezztroy: understandable.

@Scrawnto said:

@gamefreak9: Ah, your wording was a bit imprecise there, so I misunderstood you. I generally take vertical to mean perpendicular to the ground, and horizontal to mean parallel to the ground, rather than forward and to the sides as you apparently meant. And "a unit that transforms ground unit into aerial" made me think you had omitted "from a" between transforms and ground. My mistake there.

yeah my bad.

#57 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

Polish, optimization and long, long dev cycles.

ah yes long dev cycles... I should have included that.

#58 Posted by Pr1mus (3935 posts) -

They make extremely generic games extremely well.

I'll take generic and polished any day over innovative and broken.

If a developer can give me innovative and polished at the same time of course i'll take that first. In this category i don't think of Blizzard at all but since most games on the market are either generic or broken Blizzard still ranks pretty high up on my favorite developers list.

#59 Posted by pyrodactyl (2091 posts) -

they're charismatic and very talented drug dealers

#60 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

they're charismatic and very talented drug dealers

I dno I heard wow was used as drug therapy!

#61 Posted by BeachThunder (11994 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

@ZeForgotten said:

  • Blackthrone (such a terrible game).

Fuck you, Blackthorne was awesome.

Indeed :o and Lost Vikings was great too; I have no interest in anything they've made since though...

#62 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

One of the few video game companies that ruins people's lives.

#63 Posted by Svenzon (720 posts) -

10 years ago they meant Lost Vikings and Diablo (the first one). Nowadays they mostly mean games that take forever to develop, yet still manage to bore me within 15 minutes, obnoxious pop-culture references and an even more obnoxious playerbase. Oh, and studies, exams and eventually degrees ruined by excessive World of Warcraft-playing, which didn't happen to me personally, but to several of my friends.

#64 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@Svenzon said:

10 years ago they meant Lost Vikings and Diablo (the first one). Nowadays they mostly mean games that take forever to develop, yet still manage to bore me within 15 minutes, obnoxious pop-culture references and an even more obnoxious playerbase. Oh, and studies, exams and eventually degrees ruined by excessive World of Warcraft-playing, which didn't happen to me personally, but to several of my friends.

pop-culture references? like what?

#65 Posted by YI_Orange (1151 posts) -

@nintendoeats said:

One of the few video game companies that ruins people's lives.

Or makes them!(People making a living off of SC 2)

Also, the people saying the service is poor and the games lack any depth or growth/innovation clearly have very limited experience with blizzard products. Though I guess I'll grant you that a large amount of the innovation comes from what the players find they can do within the game.

#66 Posted by Drebin_893 (2918 posts) -

@IAmNotBatman said:

Not as much as they think.

#67 Posted by SexualBubblegumX (542 posts) -
@gamefreak9
I'm hoping they say WoW never happened if they make Warcraft 4.... WoW just mangled the Warcraft series plot wise.
#68 Edited by Nonapod (126 posts) -

Blizzard is probably the only company I can think of that has never made a truly bad game. Maybe their games aren't always "innovative", but being constantly innovative is overrated anyway. They don't try to reinvent the wheel, they typically just improve or build upon existing well established tropes, and that's fine.

You personally may not like some or even all of the games they've made, but it's pretty well established that they've never developed a game that has been panned or roundly disliked, and they've been around a long time and made a fair number of games. Try to think of another company that you can say that of.

#69 Posted by TheSilentTruth (1120 posts) -

Diablo 2 came to mind.

#70 Posted by buft (3318 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

they're charismatic and very talented drug dealers

i laughed and then a split second later i knew this to be true.

#71 Posted by AlexanderSheen (5022 posts) -

I'm indifferent about Blizzard (they make really awesome trailers, I guess), but I like blizzards.

#72 Posted by CookieMonster (2418 posts) -

Not much.

#73 Posted by RelentlessKnight (963 posts) -
#74 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11799 posts) -

They release the same game 12 years later and get away with it because it's so damn polished and well-executed, which basically extends to everything they have done since like Warcraft II.

#75 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@ArbitraryWater said:

They release the same game 12 years later and get away with it because it's so damn polished and well-executed, which basically extends to everything they have done since like Warcraft II.

if it was the same game there would not still be a sc1 scene.

#76 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

I think people tend to forget that Blizzard was in on the ground floor with the RTS genre. They were not the first of course but they had one of the first that closely resembles them the way they do today. Also how many games did you see that were like Diablo before that came out? I can't think of a single one. I can't defend the mmo thing except to say that they took a mostly unproven model and turned it into a world spanning phenomenon.

I will agree they are not the best innovators and hardly come up with anything original and continue to iterate on their past successes. But guess what? They do a damn good job of making some of the best games in their respective genres and you would be lying if you said any of their current games aren't some of the most well built out there.

People just like to be dismissive and derogatory because they are so successful and maybe also because they're under the Activision banner. It's not just a matter of not caring for the games.

#77 Posted by CJduke (790 posts) -

After their new Heart of the Swarm announcements the other day, I'd say the best developer there is.

#78 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

Games i don't care about.

#79 Posted by President_Barackbar (3462 posts) -
@devilzrule27 said:

Games I don't care about.

#80 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

first things that come to mind are

Warcraft - Warhammer

Starcraft - Warhammer 40k

Diablo - Dungeons and Dragons

It's not really a bad thing, it's just what I think about when I think about Blizzard games

#81 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:

@Ravenlight said:

@ZeForgotten said:

  • Blackthrone (such a terrible game).

Fuck you, Blackthorne was awesome.

Indeed :o and Lost Vikings was great too; I have no interest in anything they've made since though...

I thought it was a terrible game and didn't like it. Deal with it, kids! :P 
But Lost vikings I can get behind.  
 
(also, I realized that I made a typo, so thanks!)
#82 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
#83 Posted by Franstone (1124 posts) -
  • Grade A developers
  • Chopping Wood!
  • Extreme polish
  • Yes sire!
  • Awesome CG & story to match
  • As you wish!
  • It's done when we say it's done
#84 Posted by Ben_H (3366 posts) -
@CJduke said:

After their new Heart of the Swarm announcements the other day, I'd say the best developer there is.

Indeed. They are fixing literally everything the community complains about. Unranked ladder will be huge, I am so excited for it. 
#85 Posted by fox01313 (5074 posts) -

Constantly taking forever to make games & obsessively caught in an endless amount of updates for nerfing/boosting the MMO they make.

#86 Posted by WrathOfBanja (354 posts) -

They've been dead to me since WoW began.

#87 Posted by Breadfan (6590 posts) -

Too much time spent playing Diablo 2 in high school.

#88 Posted by Creamypies (4070 posts) -

To me? Not a lot. I've never played WoW, never played Starcraft and never played Diablo. In fact, the only game of theirs I have played is Blackthorne.

So I guess the Blizzard of today is practically a blank canvas to me.

I'm interested to pick up Diablo III though, as I loved Torchlight.

#89 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

It's an attack from a Final Fantasy game.

#90 Posted by guiseppe (2841 posts) -

Insanely high quality.

#91 Posted by D0tti (786 posts) -

Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne

#92 Posted by DrDarkStryfe (1119 posts) -

Nothing anymore. They are leading the charge for the "games are a service" idea, and slowly monetizing every aspect of their titles. When Titan hits, Battle.Net will be a paid service.

#93 Posted by PenguinDust (12533 posts) -

Snow...and Warcraft. Warcraft and snow. That's about it.

#94 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@WrathOfBanja said:

They've been dead to me since WoW began.

aw come on... you need to be a little more forgiving :p.

@DrDarkStryfe said:

Nothing anymore. They are leading the charge for the "games are a service" idea, and slowly monetizing every aspect of their titles. When Titan hits, Battle.Net will be a paid service.

Um, i'm guessing your refering to the RMAH? that's about it... other companies have found more ways to monetize services, like League of Legends.

#95 Posted by mordukai (7153 posts) -
  1. Need to go to the store and get supplies because we are not gonna go outside at any point int he next 4 days.
  2. A very thick yet extremely delicious shake from DQ.
#96 Posted by Sammo21 (3298 posts) -

A company that finds something successful and does iterate on the formula. Also a company that people buy games from no matter what.

#97 Posted by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

Hope.

#98 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

@Sammo21 said:

A company that finds something successful and does iterate on the formula. Also a company that people buy games from no matter what.

What company doesn't? Also I put emphasis on Successful! Don't pick a game you like, pick a game that did REALLY well.

#99 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Dezztroy said:

Complete lack of innovation.

RIght, WoW and Warcraft 3 never did anything to spark their respective markets.

#100 Posted by nickux (1385 posts) -

Dairy Queen