#101 Posted by BeachThunder (13051 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

@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.

Well, in that case, I challenge you to a duel!

*throws down gauntlet*

why am I wearing a gauntlet?

#102 Posted by Dezztroy (921 posts) -
@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Dezztroy said:

Complete lack of innovation.

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

Who said they didn't? They never brought anything new to the genres, doesn't mean their games weren't popular.
#103 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3053 posts) -

A very well made game that is completely intellectually (and morally) bankrupt

#104 Posted by WrathOfBanja (370 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

@WrathOfBanja said:

They've been dead to me since WoW began.

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

I was. Then I played Starcraft 2. I've lost all confidence in those guys. I probably won't even give D3 a look unless somehow the reception is universally positive.

#105 Posted by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@Dezztroy said:

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Dezztroy said:

Complete lack of innovation.

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

Who said they didn't? They never brought anything new to the genres, doesn't mean their games weren't popular.

I have no idea how you call Warcraft 3 not innovative... I don't recall any other strategy games that created such an incentive to not just expand and turtle up.

#106 Posted by Origina1Penguin (3521 posts) -

Diablo. That's all I've played by Blizzard. I'm grateful though, because Titan Quest came out of it and I enjoyed that more.

#107 Posted by Amukasa (56 posts) -

Reliable. They seem to still be in a respectable holding pattern but scared they are about to jump the shark like so many before them. Once great innovative company's that get beholden to shareholders. Once you go public the real countdown begins. They still have wow money to keep them somewhat happy but once that begins to dip be afraid.... Very afraid.

#108 Posted by Amukasa (56 posts) -

Also... Really they are not innovative? I am not a fanboy or agree on some of their design choices but do u understand what they created? Let's see diablo coined the term diablo clone. They created a genre with this game. I don't get the point of loot runs but clearly many like it. They still play star craft as a sport today. How many years has that game been relevant? I heard wow has made a few dollars in its time. I played that for a year or so before I thought they ruined it but I know a few people that still like it. These guys make games that last. When company's release games 10 years after a blizzard game in the same genre they still compare the 2. Guess there is some innovation in there whether you like it or not.

#109 Posted by Mnemoidian (1008 posts) -

Blizzard... is unique but also extremely iterative. In many ways, they the reversed mirror-image of Valve. A lot more open, they have developers readily talking with the community, discussing and explaining their reasons for making balancing decisions (not that people always/ever agree with them), but it's clear that they are trying to explain why they are doing things. I really love how open they are about a lot of things - discussions about why they aren't announcing (or hinting) at release dates early, etc.

As for their games... they are one of the few developers who can get away with (and probably the only one who uses it correctly?) as much development time as they need. Combine that with the guts to throw out any project that is not working - see Warcraft Adventures and Starcraft: Ghost (Though I don't think it's technically canceled?).

I don't know if I'd call them innovative, most of their games are very clearly iterative - though they are clearly the leaders in the current popular MMO paradigm (that is to say third person, hotbar-based queueing of commands) - Having kept up with some decisions Blizzard has made has ruined other MMOGs for me - Talent Trees, for instance, now feel stale meaningless (+0.5% more damage per level of this talent!? EXCITING!).

Personally, I will look very closely at any Blizzard game. Even if they are not breaking any molds, they are almost guaranteed to be making a game that is better than anything else that is on the market at the time of release.

#110 Edited by Tennmuerti (8245 posts) -

On Blizzard not being innovative.

Welp I typed out all this shit as a reply to another discussion today but it seems it would be relevant to this topic as well:

The below is by no means an exhaustive list, just stuff that instantly leaps to mind:

Diablo 1&2 - basically spawned it's own genre, another innovation here is they made it visible to everyone how loot can be an insanely great motivator, i truly really see no better argument for a game being innovative when it actually creates its very own geanre. The complete stripping down of RPG story, and making it all about the loot, fast player controlled action, was a huge huge derivation from what RPGs used to be like back in the day. Personally I actually disliked D1&2 go figure :)

Warcraft2/SC - introduction of an unprecedented individual unit personality into RTS, with units having their own detailed in-game portraits and shit talk lines; story/events that unfolded during the missions not just in separate FMV/cutscenes making the entire game feel far more connected; these games also had a completely different unit/structure build mechanics compared to C&C series, these were very different games; these 2 are in effect innovative in everything, they are the grandaddies, the initial cornerstones of the RTS genre just like Dune2 and C&C were, the series took different approaches to the genre; you can't say what did they innovate on when there was nothing to even innovate on, they started this shit, effectively concurrently with Westwood (fuck i love Westwood)

SC - extremely asymmetrical 3 confilct sides, whereas most other RTS games of the time relied on very symmetrical factions with minor variations, yet the game managed to maintain balance between them; C&C went on to borrow this idea and the above over time

Warcraft 3 - hero units, persistent hero units across the campaign, gear and inventory for your units, RPG statistics and their growth for units; incentivizing of player action during opening minutes of a match via creeps, loot, neutral building, neutral heroes; a extremely robust map editor that allowed people to create shit in an RTS to a degree never before possible, eventually even spawning it's own geanre

WoW - continuous world, ie there were no zones which you had to use little passages or see loading screens between (bar 2 continets) you could travel from one side of the world to another non stop, something that MMOs are still struggling to do today, giving it again a better feeling of being an actual world rather then artificial collection of areas like many MMOs before; Phasing, no i don't mean simplistic instancing we see in many MMO's including this one, but on the fly seamless, world instancing for individual players with different world states and different events happening simultaneously in the same areas; a move away from simple MMO fetch/kill quests with expansions introducing a huge extra variety to the bland MMO pallet; daily quests (fuck i hated them); grouping tools, ability to gather and enter into instances from any place in the world; access to a huge amount of internal data by people through APIs allowing for an insane variety of UI mods and spawning massive data sites; the constant new boss mechanics alone are a first for the genre; i haven't played in years now myself so don't even know anything post Cata; i'm no MMO expert having started playing late around EQ2 beta days, so some of those concept might have been done

SC2 - story/interactivity between missions during a campaign, seriously i've been playing RTS games since Dune2 and there is nothing like what SC2 offered in terms of interesting shit to do between missions, talking to characters, upgrading units, mercenaries, tech trees, small choices that affected which units you get, all in a feedback loop, the inter mission hub system is a new bar for RTS games; on the MP front it's the first RTS that actually created a system that allowed newbie players to be able to enjoy playing the MP with appropriate level of challenge for them, rts games can be fucking brutal to new players, the tiered visible system combined with the hidden skill system made such possible.

Blizzard is indeed known better for their extreme polish and flawless execution of existing concepts like you rightly said. But it is imo impossible to say that they are not innovative. To me that's patently false.

#111 Posted by Fallen189 (5305 posts) -

Snake oil merchants

#112 Posted by Karkarov (3592 posts) -

@Amukasa said:

Also... Really they are not innovative? I am not a fanboy or agree on some of their design choices but do u understand what they created? Let's see diablo coined the term diablo clone. They created a genre with this game. I don't get the point of loot runs but clearly many like it. They still play star craft as a sport today. How many years has that game been relevant? I heard wow has made a few dollars in its time. I played that for a year or so before I thought they ruined it but I know a few people that still like it. These guys make games that last. When company's release games 10 years after a blizzard game in the same genre they still compare the 2. Guess there is some innovation in there whether you like it or not.

Blizzard is about as innovative as a gallon of chocolate milk. They did not invent any genre, do you really think no one had made a isometric view action RPG before Diablo? Guess what, they did, and there were lots of them. Diablo just happened to be the most successful. The place they were most innovative was actually in RTS games since before Warcraft RTS games actually required the S portion of the name. After blizzard was done all that mattered was who had the cheesier plan, the better build order, the better macro, or got put on the spot with the best resources. To say they are completely bankrupt on innovation when it comes to MMO's would also be accurate, outside of boss mechanics everything they do is just copy pasted from their competition.

When I think Blizzard I think of a tired old company that has lost all originality or drive to actually make good games who simply releases the same three products over and over. They just wait so long between releases that people forget that it is just the same game again with slightly prettier graphics. The idea that they take so long to "do it right" is also laughably hilarious. No one "needs" 5+ years to make a isometric view action RPG dungeon hack game which is all Diablo is.

#113 Posted by ZeForgotten (10368 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@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.

Well, in that case, I challenge you to a duel!

*throws down gauntlet*

why am I wearing a gauntlet?

If you ever wondered why using a mouse on a PC was really hard, it's because of the gauntlet!  
Also, your FOV in games is lowered with that silly helmet you're wearing, just take it off. You are not a knight! 
#114 Edited by Tennmuerti (8245 posts) -

People saying Blizzard is not innovative are hilarious.

#115 Posted by Amukasa (56 posts) -
@Karkarov

Sorry there are no actual facts in your statement other than they are the most succesful in all the genres they waltz into. Its not like they are Madden and bought a license to stop competition in a genre. What i am saying is they dominate through their innovation of said genre. Oh right, I forgot about the millions still playing command and conquoer competivley or was it supreme commander are those kids stream. What are all isometric games called again....are they Rune clones? oh thats right landstalker clones. the kids cant get enough of those. What I mean is that they take over genres and that does require a bit of innovation whether you like the game or comapany or not. I was just playing an everquest clone the other day and i just wasnt feeling it or was that the UO: Online clone I loved. 
 
Im not pointing to the units or that funny diablo character. I am talking about overall package innovation that they brand stamp with their games. Their games dont go into bargain bins they are played for decades by millions of people but thats not innovation thats people that cant afford new games. 
 
Again I am not even a fan boy of their games other than SC2. I do though understand what they have done in building incredibly long lasting franchises and the innovation that takes. I know the source material is cloned but at this point what isnt. Its how it was used and how the fans received it and continue to play and play and play.
#116 Posted by DeF (5207 posts) -

Lots and lots of waiting, pretty CG, fun LAN multiplayer PC gaming with friends

#117 Posted by dagas (3056 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

So In my opinion a Blizzard game means:

  • A comparatively balanced MP experience.
  • Easy to run game, high end hardware not required
  • Active Support for the game for at least 5 years
  • Sharp Gameplay
  • A story with compelling characters and almost always a betrayal somewhere
  • Quality, I expect all Blizzard games to be of very high quality that persists for years
  • Easy to get into and hard to master

I can agree with everything except for the thing about good stories. Granted I have not played their later games but SC1,WC3 and Diablo 2 don't really have stories that are more than functional. The gameplay is what they focus on.

#118 Posted by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@dagas said:

@gamefreak9 said:

So In my opinion a Blizzard game means:

  • A comparatively balanced MP experience.
  • Easy to run game, high end hardware not required
  • Active Support for the game for at least 5 years
  • Sharp Gameplay
  • A story with compelling characters and almost always a betrayal somewhere
  • Quality, I expect all Blizzard games to be of very high quality that persists for years
  • Easy to get into and hard to master

I can agree with everything except for the thing about good stories. Granted I have not played their later games but SC1,WC3 and Diablo 2 don't really have stories that are more than functional. The gameplay is what they focus on.

you know some people hold the SC1 story VERY HIGH. I can't say its my favorite but I did enjoy the Kerrigan feel in Brood War, that really had me hooked. However W3 the frozen throne is probably my favorite universes there is just so much to the story. The Illidan/Malfurion relationship is off the charts to me, twin brothers who both liked the same girl and started competing, one down the nature path the other down another school of magic, Tyrande goes with Malfurion and Illidan loses faith in his race and tries to compensate his failure at love with power and runs into all sorts of trouble. Probably more to this relationship than most novel characters.

#119 Posted by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@Amukasa: @Karkarov:

Yeah what Amukasa said. Portal is an FPS clone, braid is a Super mario clone... that's not how you judge innovation. A burger is an innovation, not they invented the bun and burger, but because they brought it together.

#120 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8504 posts) -

Theft -> Innovation -> Stagnation -> Masturbation

#121 Edited by YI_Orange (1210 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

@Amukasa said:

Also... Really they are not innovative? I am not a fanboy or agree on some of their design choices but do u understand what they created? Let's see diablo coined the term diablo clone. They created a genre with this game. I don't get the point of loot runs but clearly many like it. They still play star craft as a sport today. How many years has that game been relevant? I heard wow has made a few dollars in its time. I played that for a year or so before I thought they ruined it but I know a few people that still like it. These guys make games that last. When company's release games 10 years after a blizzard game in the same genre they still compare the 2. Guess there is some innovation in there whether you like it or not.

Blizzard is about as innovative as a gallon of chocolate milk. They did not invent any genre, do you really think no one had made a isometric view action RPG before Diablo? Guess what, they did, and there were lots of them. Diablo just happened to be the most successful. The place they were most innovative was actually in RTS games since before Warcraft RTS games actually required the S portion of the name. After blizzard was done all that mattered was who had the cheesier plan, the better build order, the better macro, or got put on the spot with the best resources. To say they are completely bankrupt on innovation when it comes to MMO's would also be accurate, outside of boss mechanics everything they do is just copy pasted from their competition.

When I think Blizzard I think of a tired old company that has lost all originality or drive to actually make good games who simply releases the same three products over and over. They just wait so long between releases that people forget that it is just the same game again with slightly prettier graphics. The idea that they take so long to "do it right" is also laughably hilarious. No one "needs" 5+ years to make a isometric view action RPG dungeon hack game which is all Diablo is.

As I said earlier in this thread more generally, your experience with Blizzard products is clearly very limited. The meta of SC 2 has been changing pretty consistently since the beta. Cheese hardly works on good players anymore because everyone knows how to detect and shut it down. But I guess that's not strategy. There's no such thing as a "best build order" if that were true you would see the same exact games over and over again. Everything has a response, it's about executing an opening to try and get ahead, then following it up intelligently, adapting to what your opponent does. That's not strategy? If you answer no, then I suggest you get yourself a dictionary. Also, there's no such thing as "spot with the best resources" in SC 2 and WC 3 the maps are all symmetrical.

Also, Blizzard has a certain polish or "magic" that other games seem to lack. I've played other RTS, I used to play a lot of CnC(red alert? tiberiun sun? I forget which ones specifically). And you know what? Those games are boring as hell. I played torchlight some time ago, I only got to like level 13 or so before I stopped playing. You know what I did? I popped in Diablo 2 and played through that, so clearly it wasn't the genre's fault.

edit - I realize the above is subjective. That's just my personal feeling on why their games are so loved. I can't be the only one that can't exactly explain what about them makes them so much better but knows that there's something there.

Maybe Blizzard doesn't "NEED" that much time to make a game, but their games are always the top of the genre. Say what you will about WoW, and I just recently stopped playing, but I still think it's the best MMO out there. Granted it has a lifespan on their side. Also, people are happy to wait. I'm pretty sure the only fans that are dissatisfied are the WC III fans with the lack of WC IV. How many other games can you say people will happily play for 5+ years while they wait for the sequel? Not many I bet.

You seem to think that innovation and invention are the same thing, they aren't. Maybe Blizzard doesn't create a genre, but they're always leagues ahead of their competition.

#122 Edited by Anund (996 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

On Blizzard not being innovative.

Welp I typed out all this shit as a reply to another discussion today but it seems it would be relevant to this topic as well:

The below is by no means an exhaustive list, just stuff that instantly leaps to mind:

Diablo 1&2 - basically spawned it's own genre, another innovation here is they made it visible to everyone how loot can be an insanely great motivator, i truly really see no better argument for a game being innovative when it actually creates its very own geanre. The complete stripping down of RPG story, and making it all about the loot, fast player controlled action, was a huge huge derivation from what RPGs used to be like back in the day. Personally I actually disliked D1&2 go figure :)

Warcraft2/SC - introduction of an unprecedented individual unit personality into RTS, with units having their own detailed in-game portraits and shit talk lines; story/events that unfolded during the missions not just in separate FMV/cutscenes making the entire game feel far more connected; these games also had a completely different unit/structure build mechanics compared to C&C series, these were very different games; these 2 are in effect innovative in everything, they are the grandaddies, the initial cornerstones of the RTS genre just like Dune2 and C&C were, the series took different approaches to the genre; you can't say what did they innovate on when there was nothing to even innovate on, they started this shit, effectively concurrently with Westwood (fuck i love Westwood)

SC - extremely asymmetrical 3 confilct sides, whereas most other RTS games of the time relied on very symmetrical factions with minor variations, yet the game managed to maintain balance between them; C&C went on to borrow this idea and the above over time

Warcraft 3 - hero units, persistent hero units across the campaign, gear and inventory for your units, RPG statistics and their growth for units; incentivizing of player action during opening minutes of a match via creeps, loot, neutral building, neutral heroes; a extremely robust map editor that allowed people to create shit in an RTS to a degree never before possible, eventually even spawning it's own geanre

WoW - continuous world, ie there were no zones which you had to use little passages or see loading screens between (bar 2 continets) you could travel from one side of the world to another non stop, something that MMOs are still struggling to do today, giving it again a better feeling of being an actual world rather then artificial collection of areas like many MMOs before; Phasing, no i don't mean simplistic instancing we see in many MMO's including this one, but on the fly seamless, world instancing for individual players with different world states and different events happening simultaneously in the same areas; a move away from simple MMO fetch/kill quests with expansions introducing a huge extra variety to the bland MMO pallet; daily quests (fuck i hated them); grouping tools, ability to gather and enter into instances from any place in the world; access to a huge amount of internal data by people through APIs allowing for an insane variety of UI mods and spawning massive data sites; the constant new boss mechanics alone are a first for the genre; i haven't played in years now myself so don't even know anything post Cata; i'm no MMO expert having started playing late around EQ2 beta days, so some of those concept might have been done

SC2 - story/interactivity between missions during a campaign, seriously i've been playing RTS games since Dune2 and there is nothing like what SC2 offered in terms of interesting shit to do between missions, talking to characters, upgrading units, mercenaries, tech trees, small choices that affected which units you get, all in a feedback loop, the inter mission hub system is a new bar for RTS games; on the MP front it's the first RTS that actually created a system that allowed newbie players to be able to enjoy playing the MP with appropriate level of challenge for them, rts games can be fucking brutal to new players, the tiered visible system combined with the hidden skill system made such possible.

Blizzard is indeed known better for their extreme polish and flawless execution of existing concepts like you rightly said. But it is imo impossible to say that they are not innovative. To me that's patently false.

And since I was the recipient of said reply, I'll put mine here as well.

Diablo 1&2 - basically spawned it's own genre, another innovation here is they made it visible to everyone how loot can be an insanely great motivator, i truly really see no better argument for a game being innovative when it actually creates its very own geanre. The complete stripping down of RPG story, and making it all about the loot, fast player controlled action, was a huge huge derivation from what RPGs used to be like back in the day. Personally I actually disliked D1&2 go figure :)

I will give you this, Diablo was innovative. They created what is basically a new genre where fighting required more player interaction than previous RPGs. Diablo 2, however, was not innovative, it was a polished version of Diablo 1 with better graphics.

Warcraft2/SC - introduction of an unprecedented individual unit personality into RTS, with units having their own detailed in-game portraits and shit talk lines; story/events that unfolded during the missions not just in separate FMV/cutscenes making the entire game feel far more connected; these games also had a completely different unit/structure build mechanics compared to C&C series, these were very different games; these 2 are in effect innovative in everything, they are the grandaddies, the initial cornerstones of the RTS genre just like Dune2 and C&C were, the series took different approaches to the genre; you can't say what did they innovate on when there was nothing to even innovate on, they started this shit, effectively concurrently with Westwood (fuck i love Westwood)

I don't think increasing the personality of the in game units and creating a good story is enough to classify SC as being innovative. Warcraft 3's inclusion of RPG elements into the RTS genre? Yes, that's an innovation, I'll give you that, even though it's borderline, being basically just the merging of two existing ideas. Overall I think you overestimate Blizzard's contribution to the RTS genre. They basically just did what Dune 2 did, then evolved it.

SC - extremely asymmetrical 3 confilct sides, whereas most other RTS games of the time relied on very symmetrical factions with minor variations, yet the game managed to maintain balance between them; C&C went on to borrow this idea and the above over time

Creating sides which vary greatly in playstyle is a feat of balancing and game design, but not innovation.

Warcraft 3 - hero units, persistent hero units across the campaign, gear and inventory for your units, RPG statistics and their growth for units; incentivizing of player action during opening minutes of a match via creeps, loot, neutral building, neutral heroes; a extremely robust map editor that allowed people to create shit in an RTS to a degree never before possible, eventually even spawning it's own geanre

Already conceded this point, this is in fact what I had in mind when I added the disclaimer that I wasn't saying they had never come up with anything on their own.

WoW - continuous world, ie there were no zones which you had to use little passages or see loading screens between (bar 2 continets) you could travel from one side of the world to another non stop, something that MMOs are still struggling to do today, giving it again a better feeling of being an actual world rather then artificial collection of areas like many MMOs before; Phasing, no i don't mean simplistic instancing we see in many MMO's including this one, but on the fly seamless, world instancing for individual players with different world states and different events happening simultaneously in the same areas; a move away from simple MMO fetch/kill quests with expansions introducing a huge extra variety to the bland MMO pallet; daily quests (fuck i hated them); grouping tools, ability to gather and enter into instances from any place in the world; access to a huge amount of internal data by people through APIs allowing for an insane variety of UI mods and spawning massive data sites; the constant new boss mechanics alone are a first for the genre; i haven't played in years now myself so don't even know anything post Cata; i'm no MMO expert having started playing late around EQ2 beta days, so some of those concept might have been done

I'll just tackle these points one by one:

  • Continuous world: The concept of zones with loading screens between them is actually a modern construct. Older games, such as DAoC, had, at release, no loading zones within the continents. You could run from one end of the world to the next without zoning anywhere. You did have to zone into dungeons, but removing a load screen is, yet again, not exactly innovative, is it?
  • Phasing: Yeah, that is Blizzard's third innovation.
  • Quests: WoW's questing system, pre-Phasing, was not very different from that of any other game.
  • The dungeon finder: Innovative? Yes. Fucking dumb? Yes.
  • UI mods and statistics: These were available in DAoC as well, and likely most other pre.WoW MMOs.
  • Boss mechanics: This of course depends on what mechanics you're talking about, but they would have to be pretty major things to be considered an actual innovation, bringing the genre forward, rather than just minor improvements on existing concepts.

I get the feeling you really didn't play MMOs before WoW.

SC2 - story/interactivity between missions during a campaign, seriously i've been playing RTS games since Dune2 and there is nothing like what SC2 offered in terms of interesting shit to do between missions, talking to characters, upgrading units, mercenaries, tech trees, small choices that affected which units you get, all in a feedback loop, the inter mission hub system is a new bar for RTS games; on the MP front it's the first RTS that actually created a system that allowed newbie players to be able to enjoy playing the MP with appropriate level of challenge for them, rts games can be fucking brutal to new players, the tiered visible system combined with the hidden skill system made such possible.

Again, creating a good story is not an innovation. People have known about good stories since before we learned how to write them down. It's an artform, something Blizzard is good at, but it's not innovative. Techtrees and upgrading mechanics, yet again... did Blizzard come up with these concepts? No. So they aren't innovations. Matchmaking is not a new concept either, and you know this. Just because they implemented it well doesn't mean it's an innovation.

All in all I just get the feeling we don't have the same definition of what is an innovation. Just because something is well implemented, that doesn't mean it's innovative, there is a difference here. I understand you like Blizzard, but that doesn't change the fact that they iterate in tiny steps on existing concepts and improve on them. They, as a general rule, do not come up with completely new ideas.

Let's continue this in this thread since we're actually on topic here.

#123 Posted by GunslingerPanda (5029 posts) -

Rather than getting into some moronic debate about innovation, I will simply say:

Chris Metzen.

#124 Posted by YI_Orange (1210 posts) -

@Anund: Sorry to interject, but I find your conversation interesting, and let me know if I'm missing the point of it since I don't know the original thread you're talking about.

I just want to give a couple quick thoughts. Does something need to be entirely innovative? Why can something not be innovating purely within it's genre and still be considered innovative? Also, at this point in games I don't believe that we will see much with great innovation, there is only so much you can do. To me, it's about the little things. To tell you what I'm talking about; I don't know enough about Diablo 1 so I'll concede that point, but Starcraft to Starcraft 2 is a different story. Granted I did not have a lot of experience with the ladder in SC 1 and BW, but to me SC 2 felt like a totally different game, and some pros have chosen not to move over to SC 2(yet at least) because how different of a game it is. Even just allowing the selection of more units and creating different interaction changes the game dramatically. At it's core, yes, it is the same game, it is an RTS. You build units and tech and attack your enemy. You manage resources. It's all the little things that go into it that make it different and I believe that is where true innovation lies.

I honestly can not think of any recent game I would consider innovative using the definition some people appear to go by.

#125 Posted by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@Anund:

I think you just don't understand what innovation means.

@GunslingerPanda:

Innovation is a very interesting topic, one that obviously doesn't get discussed enough given that most people here don't know what it is.

#126 Posted by Sporkbane (185 posts) -

One of a few video game companies that is so big it has a cultish following.

That being said, I'm a card carrying member

#127 Edited by Anund (996 posts) -

@YI_Orange and

Lo dudes. The conversation was started in the Tera quicklook thread.

Let me explain my view on innovation. If something is a natural evolution on how things work, then it's not innovative. Take the Starcraft argument made by Tenn: Making the three sides very diverse. The creators of Dune 2 probably realized this would be a good idea as well, it's sort of an obvious truth. More diverse factions means supporting more different playstyles within one game, thus attracting more players. Making this connection is not difficult., It's not like this is the result of someone at Blizzard one day going "Holy shit guys, know what I just realised?". No, coming up with this idea is not the problem: implementing it is. It's a technical feat, not a feat of innovation.

There are of course technical innovations as well. If, for example, Tenn's original claim that WoW was the first MMO to feature a word without loading screens was true, then that would be a technical innovation. That is not really what I am talking about here though, even though it's of course a factor. The reason is technical innovation is often much harder to see from a user's point of view. There may well be brilliant solutions in the code for rendering shadows, but I don't care, all I see are shadows. Technical innovation is also very often hard to distinguish from results in technical development. Say WoW had been the first MMO to feature a world without load screens: would that have been an innovation on Blizzard's part, or simply them making use of improved tech to create something which simply wasn't possible previously?

What I've been discussing are innovations in gameplay or concepts. My opinion is that this is not an area where Blizzard stands out.

#128 Edited by Tennmuerti (8245 posts) -

@Anund said:


Warcraft2/SC - introduction of an unprecedented individual unit personality into RTS, with units having their own detailed in-game portraits and shit talk lines; story/events that unfolded during the missions not just in separate FMV/cutscenes making the entire game feel far more connected; these games also had a completely different unit/structure build mechanics compared to C&C series, these were very different games; these 2 are in effect innovative in everything, they are the grandaddies, the initial cornerstones of the RTS genre just like Dune2 and C&C were, the series took different approaches to the genre; you can't say what did they innovate on when there was nothing to even innovate on, they started this shit, effectively concurrently with Westwood (fuck i love Westwood)

I don't think increasing the personality of the in game units and creating a good story is enough to classify SC as being innovative. Warcraft 3's inclusion of RPG elements into the RTS genre? Yes, that's an innovation, I'll give you that, even though it's borderline, being basically just the merging of two existing ideas. Overall I think you overestimate Blizzard's contribution to the RTS genre. They basically just did what Dune 2 did, then evolved it.

Why is it not innovation? it is something that was entirely new to the genre. Whether something is a small innovation or a big one is irrelevant. It is still new. And almost all innovation in the games industry is. There are also very significant core differences between Blizz and Westwood games in terms of how they approach base building, resource collection, unit count, etc. Some of these ideas which later EALA went on to borrow.

SC - extremely asymmetrical 3 confilct sides, whereas most other RTS games of the time relied on very symmetrical factions with minor variations, yet the game managed to maintain balance between them; C&C went on to borrow this idea and the above over time

Creating sides which vary greatly in playstyle is a feat of balancing and game design, but not innovation.

Again I don't see your logic behind this. It was a very new thing for the genre. Innovation pure and simple. Balance has nothing to do with this, there are plenty of symmetrical RTS games that are unbalanced , and plenty asymmetrical clones that followed SC that were unbalanced. Extremely asymmetrical sides was something new, something that was not being done before.

Thank you for the extra info on the MMO front, as I said I don't have in depth previous knowledge of the genre. I played some MMOs before WoW, but very casually, my main first big dip into MMOs that lasted for a long time was EQ2

SC2 - story/interactivity between missions during a campaign, seriously i've been playing RTS games since Dune2 and there is nothing like what SC2 offered in terms of interesting shit to do between missions, talking to characters, upgrading units, mercenaries, tech trees, small choices that affected which units you get, all in a feedback loop, the inter mission hub system is a new bar for RTS games; on the MP front it's the first RTS that actually created a system that allowed newbie players to be able to enjoy playing the MP with appropriate level of challenge for them, rts games can be fucking brutal to new players, the tiered visible system combined with the hidden skill system made such possible.

Again, creating a good story is not an innovation. People have known about good stories since before we learned how to write them down. It's an artform, something Blizzard is good at, but it's not innovative. Techtrees and upgrading mechanics, yet again... did Blizzard come up with these concepts? No. So they aren't innovations. Matchmaking is not a new concept either, and you know this. Just because they implemented it well doesn't mean it's an innovation.

I am not talking purely about the story but the actual interactive environment between missions that was set up in SC2. I have not seen any RTS to date do something like that. Have you?

Matchmaking is of course not innovative by itself. But the inclusion of an extremely effective matchmaking system into an RTS is.

All in all I just get the feeling we don't have the same definition of what is an innovation. Just because something is well implemented, that doesn't mean it's innovative, there is a difference here. I understand you like Blizzard, but that doesn't change the fact that they iterate in tiny steps on existing concepts and improve on them. They, as a general rule, do not come up with completely new ideas.

Let's continue this in this thread since we're actually on topic here.

To me innovation is something new i have not seen being done yet. As a general rule yes I agree with you Blizzard's thing is extreme iteration on existing concepts. But that does not mean that we can just dismiss the new things they have introduced into games. Already me and you have agreed on far more innovations then almost any existing game develops can boast. Are they more iterative then innovative - yes. Are they devoid of innovation - hell no.

By the way my liking or disliking Blizzard has nothing really to do with the arguments I am making. I am as ready to criticize quite a lot of aspects of their games and business decisions (and have done so in other threads) :)

#129 Posted by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@Anund:

I can't dig up relevant material right now, but I will when I have time. In the meantime, I challenge you to give me a company that has been more innovative in TOTAL.

#130 Posted by Amukasa (56 posts) -

does it still mean this? Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

#131 Posted by Anund (996 posts) -

@Amukasa said:

does it still mean this? Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

Well, if this is the case then I completely withdraw my point because by this definition innovation is exactly what Blizzard is all about: taking existing concepts and polishing them to a high shine.

#132 Edited by gamefreak9 (2752 posts) -

@InternetCrab: @Pr1mus: @Dezztroy: @Anund: @Tennmuerti: @Amukasa said:

does it still mean this? Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

That's more or less correct, the commercialization of an invention. Innovation means a wide range of things, not all innovation is radical or disruptive, it can be incremental, there's a coined term for "incremental innovation". For instance purposefully cooking something at 120 degrees instead of 100 is an innovation. And yeah innovation for businesses is either a product, a process or a service. Pretty much all of the stuff we talk about here that enchances the experience(loading time included) is a product innovation.

#133 Posted by SmilingPig (1370 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

Getting your account stolen and being told to buy the game again.

Ya!

#134 Posted by Danteveli (1287 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbVVEt8QylY

but seriously

Company that was a thing back in the day now they are part of Activision.

#135 Posted by Ariketh (653 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

A fuckload of snow?

#136 Posted by YI_Orange (1210 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

@InternetCrab: @Pr1mus: @Dezztroy: @Anund: @Tennmuerti: @Amukasa said:

does it still mean this? Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

That's more or less correct, the commercialization of an invention. Innovation means a wide range of things, not all innovation is radical or disruptive, it can be incremental, there's a coined term for "incremental innovation". For instance purposefully cooking something at 120 degrees instead of 100 is an innovation. And yeah innovation for businesses is either a product, a process or a service. Pretty much all of the stuff we talk about here that enchances the experience(loading time included) is a product innovation.

This is the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

#137 Edited by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

A fuckload of snow?

This is still the first thing that comes to mind.

Then maybe Blizzard of Ozz

#138 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1879 posts) -

Not much. I don't like wow and before Starcraft 2 the last game I bought was starcraft 1 and diablo 2... About ten years ago.

#139 Posted by GunslingerPanda (5029 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

@GunslingerPanda:

Innovation is a very interesting topic, one that obviously doesn't get discussed enough given that most people here don't know what it is.

I guess the staff and the mods haven't told them what to think yet.

#140 Posted by BulletproofMonk (2734 posts) -

I don't know. I played a lot of Diablo 2 back in the day, but that's about it.

#141 Posted by emem (2046 posts) -

The first thing that comes to mind is still Diablo
 
Sometimes not as much innovation as I'd like to see, but always quality releases.  
 
Together with Valve the only big company left that releases extremely well polished PC games (sadly id messed up with Rage).

#142 Posted by Aaron_G (1678 posts) -

I think of a very bad snow storm.

#143 Posted by Yanngc33 (4551 posts) -

Delays

#144 Posted by Deadmeat (137 posts) -

@gamefreak9: Easy to get into and hard to master

That to me is the one thing that defines every Blizzard game, which I LOVE ABOUT THEM! Being older now (27) I don't have as much time, but if I want to spend the time I will get a very deep experience out of it. I got pretty deep into Starcraft 2 for a few months, and I may for Diablo 3, but if not I'll still have a blast to just jump in an play. That's the best part, you can hop into Starcraft 2 a year later, not know the patches, and still have a blast, maybe not as good at the game as before... but if you are a newbie or amazing at games you'll have a blast.

#145 Posted by Fjordson (2555 posts) -

Beautiful art, finely tuned gameplay, addictive multiplayer, ungodly amounts of polish, and a ton of post-release support. Oh, and dope ass cutscenes.

<3 Blizzard.

#146 Posted by MonetaryDread (2327 posts) -

It's nothing more than a company that makes videogames.

#147 Posted by TehJedicake (937 posts) -

A company that I greatly respect for their accomplishments, but I think their games are way too casual and e-sporty.

#148 Posted by tourgen (4568 posts) -
  • fantastic pixel art and handpainted textures
  • great color palettes
  • extremely polished gameplay
  • well-tested and debugged games
  • always online DRM
  • games I don't enjoy playing
#149 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1244 posts) -

Blizzard means nothing to me. I respect their success but their games aren't for me.

#150 Posted by spiceninja (3134 posts) -

StarCraft.