Damn putting me up against Paul Barnett? I think I wouldn't even vote for myself against Paul Barnett.
BobC's forum posts
" @DarkDude: It's important in that Starcraft has never had player interaction in the development or testing processes before. So unlike WoW players who are used to having the devs ears, SC and SC2 players have largely been left out of the loop. "4 months of beta testing = "leaving players out of the loop" ?
" @Kinarion: Yeah this game was so focus tested that they forgot to lock the FPS on the menu screen which led to burning video cards. Well done Blizzard, well done. "Locked FPS on menu screens is not commonly needed. That workaround was done to make up for poor drivers, inadequate cooling or both. The people who had problems with this all tended to have the exact same video card. What does that tell you?
" @buzz_clik said:Yo chill, I got th...I mean...Blizzard got dis." @Jeffsekai: The other option is that you don't jump to conclusions that they have to come out and defend. That'd circumvent the whole thing too, yeah? "No, people are always going to jump to conclusions. I don't see how hard it would have been to state that giantbomb was not fronting the whole bill, this whole topic would have been a lot nicer. Besides, its been a week and until the podcast there has been no clarification it's like they don't care enough to get someone to post on twitter saying "yo chill blizzards got this" then they turn around and act all pissed and surprised. "
still mad, bro? =)
" @KaosAngel: Or maybe they played some modern RTSs and think SC2 feels archaic in some ways. I mean, rushes still work. There's still not really a great defense against it. Like, if you go into a 2v2 or 3v3 against a team of Zerg, and they all decide to rush, you're going to lose. Even if you build a series of bases near each other and surround it with bunkers or something. Same old shit still works, I don't care what contrived nuance high tier players have given the game. If it were really so expertly balanced, I wouldn't have been downloading a new patching every other day during the beta. You thought the game was perfect before they even put the first patch up, so obviously your idea of perfection is flawed. Just sayin. "3v3 cheese is not a measure of game balance for a professional RTS. I'm just sayin'
BobC from Blizzard here. The reason we aren't giving any reviewers early access to the game is quite simple.
It is impossible.
StarCraft II, like most if not all PC games these days, requires a 1-time online activation to decrypt the installer and activate the game for play. The live Battle.net servers to support the launch will not and cannot be switched on until launch day. This is a global launch, people. This game is shipping in 11 different languages across five continents. Trying to arrange for early press access in something like 30+ countries AND get thousands of reviewers to all agree to a fair embargo date is nigh but impossible. The sensible solution is to give press the same access as everyone else gets.
More importantly, wouldn't you want reviews to be based on the same user experience that you the player will get on a retail environment? Perhaps you have your question backwards -- why does everyone else have their games reviewed in a clean, uncluttered preretail online environment and not the same environment that the consumers will experience?
Edit: And to clarify, we are sending out review copies to hundreds of media outlets in the US alone. Some get boxes, some get download codes. These arrive by Monday. We just can't fulfill every single request.
No! Activision Blizzard is not the name of the company. Blizzard Entertainment is still, Blizzard Entertainment. Games from Blizzard Entertainment are completely developed and published by Blizzard Entertainment.
The name Activision Blizzard should not concern anyone unless you are an investor/stockholder/financial analyst. It's not supposed to be a "consumer facing" brand.