What does Blizzard mean to you?

That's easy!

bliz·zard

[bliz-erd]

noun

1.Meteorology.

a.astormwithdry,drivingsnow,strongwinds, and intense cold.

b.aheavyandprolongedsnowstormcoveringawidearea.

2.aninordinatelylargeamountallatonetime;avalanche:ablizzardofChristmascards.

verb(usedwithoutobject)

3.tosnowasablizzard:Looksasthoughit'sgoingtoblizzardtonight.

Solid games I can enjoy but I don't swear by their games like some people do.

A delicious, frozen confection from my childhood.

Well crafted PC gaming. Although unfortunately they have transfomed into iteration over innovation. They still deserve respect for being a huge part of molding gaming into what it is today, but much like Bioware it's a brand that no longer carries content assurance, only technical and mechanical assurance. I have yet to play a Blizzard game that didn't work or play extremely well.

Heavy snow.

Absolutely nothing. I don't like RTS' and I hate MMO's.

To me, Blizzard means polish over innovation...and addictive, cooperative multiplayer.

The two things I think of when I think of "Blizzard" (besides snow hurr hurr) are fun games, and great, chunky artwork.

They're the best game developer of all time, in my opinion, even though I think they've ruined World of Warcraft.

@Ares42: @Duskwind:

We talk about innovation on page 7.

Quality.

From performance to amount of bugs and overall quality of content, no one can match Blizz.

Taking their god damn time.

@gamefreak9 said:

@Ares42: @Duskwind:

We talk about innovation on page 7.

And ? you can talk all you want about some new thing they've done or whatever, but you can't deny that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 is very much iterations of their predecessors. They are making sequels of sequels. Back in the day Blizzard made new games, these days they are remaking old games. Sure, the games are different, but they still follow the exact same core ideas.

Looking back through their catalog they used to have a cycle of making a game, refining it with a sequel and then adding to that with an expansion. Starcraft was an exception as it was already pretty much a spiritual sequel to Warcraft. The one time before when they've gone further with this cycle (as they are doing now with D3 and SC2) they actually changed the game up so much it spawned a completely new genre. You could even argue that WoW sorta had the same cycle of TBC being the refining sequel, Wrath being the added content expansion and Cataclysm now being the redundant sequel of sequel that's just going with the motion (and leading to the games first major dip in subs).

@Ares42 said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@Ares42: @Duskwind:

We talk about innovation on page 7.

And ? you can talk all you want about some new thing they've done or whatever, but you can't deny that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 is very much iterations of their predecessors. They are making sequels of sequels. Back in the day Blizzard made new games, these days they are remaking old games. Sure, the games are different, but they still follow the exact same core ideas.

your an idiot, just check.

I don't know, a gaming highlight from my early-mid teen years?

I don't think they made a game in the last 20 years that I didn't like. And I usually dislike the RTS genre! Opinions about the company tend to be very polarized. They get a lot of hate for making WoW - probably the best MMO of it´s kind - mostly because it´s successful and some people neglect their own lives playing it. On the other hand there´s few people who look negatively upon Starcraft. In my opinion innovation is overrated and implementation is undervalued. I personally don´t care as much for novelty as I do for the longevity and depth of a game. Minecraft is probably a good example of an innovative game (And yes, I am aware it was heavily inspired by other games) that´s well executed, but the same certainly can´t be said for most innovative games. Spore - for example - I did not like.

So.... I like Blizzard.

People are obsessed with lack of innovation and sequelitis but Blizzard release so few games that it really isn't an issue.

Diablo 3. THREE. Is that so scary? Starcraft 2. WHOA. This isn't Activision saying, "yo we need starcraft and warcraft sequels every year," like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It doesn't matter how many sequels you make if the content in each one is great. No one complains about how many Harry Potter sequels there are (no one sane any way). People get sick of AssCreed/COD because the sequels are so similar, not because they're sequels.

As for innovation. No, they don't go around inventing new genres. They innovate with their polish.

@gamefreak9: I'm sorry, I just saw big walls of texts on page 7 with people bickering about what minor details is and isn't innovation. But if you're just trying to make an argument about semantics, good for you. My native language isn't English, I'm sure I use words wrongly all the time, but I still think people understood what I meant.

@Panpipe said:

People are obsessed with lack of innovation and sequelitis but Blizzard release so few games that it really isn't an issue.

Diablo 3. THREE. Is that so scary? Starcraft 2. WHOA. This isn't Activision saying, "yo we need starcraft and warcraft sequels every year," like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It doesn't matter how many sequels you make if the content in each one is great. No one complains about how many Harry Potter sequels there are (no one sane any way). People get sick of AssCreed/COD because the sequels are so similar, not because they're sequels.

As for innovation. No, they don't go around inventing new genres. They innovate with their polish.

It's not so much about the games being bad, it's more about being used to them making great new games and then they "just" make a sequel. It's a completely irrational expectation, but it's still a disappointment. There's nothing wrong with Blizzard churning out great new versions of their old games, but I'd much rather like to see them make great new versions of new games, like they used to.

Awesomeness.

To me Blizzard will always be known for internal corruption and making gold farming fine with the current generation. Terrible example they've set.

@Ares42 said:

@gamefreak9: I'm sorry, I just saw big walls of texts on page 7 with people bickering about what minor details is and isn't innovation. But if you're just trying to make an argument about semantics, good for you. My native language isn't English, I'm sure I use words wrongly all the time, but I still think people understood what I meant.

@Panpipe said:

People are obsessed with lack of innovation and sequelitis but Blizzard release so few games that it really isn't an issue.

Diablo 3. THREE. Is that so scary? Starcraft 2. WHOA. This isn't Activision saying, "yo we need starcraft and warcraft sequels every year," like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It doesn't matter how many sequels you make if the content in each one is great. No one complains about how many Harry Potter sequels there are (no one sane any way). People get sick of AssCreed/COD because the sequels are so similar, not because they're sequels.

As for innovation. No, they don't go around inventing new genres. They innovate with their polish.

It's not so much about the games being bad, it's more about being used to them making great new games and then they "just" make a sequel. It's a completely irrational expectation, but it's still a disappointment. There's nothing wrong with Blizzard churning out great new versions of their old games, but I'd much rather like to see them make great new versions of new games, like they used to.

Find me a sequel that has made more changes than D3 has done from D2. I have a feeling your going to have a hard time. Also try to make the time-period relevant, like not more than 7 years.

edit: Also don't make it a shitty game

It means:

God's Dandruff

Angel Cum

Lots of snow

A game company

Even more fuck lots of snow

A company that only makes great games, but only makes games once in a blue moon.

@gamefreak9 said:

Find me a sequel that has made more changes than D3 has done from D2. I have a feeling your going to have a hard time. Also try to make the time-period relevant, like not more than 7 years.

edit: Also don't make it a shitty game

You completely missed my point, didn't you ? Do you still view the game through a fixed camera isometric view ? Do you still run around in a random world clicking on enemies to hit them with assorted abilities ? Do you still mostly play the game to collect loot ?

I know they have changed a lot of details, but this is sorta the fourth time they're publishing a game with the same style of gameplay. I'm sure it's a better version than the 3 pervious ones, but at a certain point improving on the same mold is less interesting than making a new one. And I'm just used to Blizzard being a reliable source for great, new molds.

Also, finding an example for you is actually pretty easy as Blizzard has done that exact thing in the past. Warcraft 3. That game, while still remaining true to it's roots, completely changed what you actually do and what you're trying to accomplish. And, as already mentioned, even spawned it's own genre.

when i think of blizzard, i think of these. 

@Panpipe said:

People are obsessed with lack of innovation and sequelitis but Blizzard release so few games that it really isn't an issue.

Diablo 3. THREE. Is that so scary? Starcraft 2. WHOA. This isn't Activision saying, "yo we need starcraft and warcraft sequels every year," like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It doesn't matter how many sequels you make if the content in each one is great. No one complains about how many Harry Potter sequels there are (no one sane any way). People get sick of AssCreed/COD because the sequels are so similar, not because they're sequels.

As for innovation. No, they don't go around inventing new genres. They innovate with their polish.

the number at the end of their newer games isn't the issue. yearly sequels you dont expect much to change, its only a year later. so expecting huge changes to the CoD formula and gameplay between titles isn't reasonable. expecting huge changes between sequels that are TEN years apart is the issue. starcraft 2 is more like a modernizing expansion than a 10+ year later sequel.

diablo 3. they've had YEARS and YEARS to come up with something new and exciting. its exactly the same but dumbed down. and diablo 2 was already pretty dumbed down as it came.

all blizzard is, is a glorified polish machine. they haven't had a real new idea since, well i can't remember.

when you can take two mario games that are 10 years apart and theres WAY more differences between those than between starcraft 1 and 2. then its a problem. i mean MARIO has more innovation and differences in its titles than blizzard games. Call of Duty 1, and MW3 are VASTLY different games and they've had less time to change things than blizzard has.

thats pathetic.

@Ares42 said:

@gamefreak9 said:

Find me a sequel that has made more changes than D3 has done from D2. I have a feeling your going to have a hard time. Also try to make the time-period relevant, like not more than 7 years.

edit: Also don't make it a shitty game

You completely missed my point, didn't you ? Do you still view the game through a fixed camera isometric view ? Do you still run around in a random world clicking on enemies to hit them with assorted abilities ? Do you still mostly play the game to collect loot ?

I know they have changed a lot of details, but this is sorta the fourth time they're publishing a game with the same style of gameplay. I'm sure it's a better version than the 3 pervious ones, but at a certain point improving on the same mold is less interesting than making a new one. And I'm just used to Blizzard being a reliable source for great, new molds.

Also, finding an example for you is actually pretty easy as Blizzard has done that exact thing in the past. Warcraft 3. That game, while still remaining true to it's roots, completely changed what you actually do and what you're trying to accomplish. And, as already mentioned, even spawned it's own genre.

you mentioned lack of innovation in a "Blizzard thread" so obviously the challenge implied not a blizzard game that has changed as much as Blizzard changes its games.

Also there are SIGNIFICANT differences between D3 and D2. And simplifying the game like that I can basically say that FPS hasn't changed since the first DOOM, you just point with your mouse and shoot. Or I can say Braid was just super mario with better graphics and an improved death mechanic. Do some research into D3 or just check the forums to see how much hate Blizzard is getting for changing too much.

@gamefreak9 said:

@Ares42 said:

you mentioned lack of innovation in a "Blizzard thread" so obviously the challenge implied not a blizzard game that has changed as much as Blizzard changes its games.

Read my first post, I said former Blizzard > current Blizzard.

Also, I've played quite a bit of the Diablo 3 beta myself. If other people think they're changing too much that's their opinion. If you ask me the game is still pretty much Diablo.

@Clonedzero said:

@Panpipe said:

People are obsessed with lack of innovation and sequelitis but Blizzard release so few games that it really isn't an issue.

Diablo 3. THREE. Is that so scary? Starcraft 2. WHOA. This isn't Activision saying, "yo we need starcraft and warcraft sequels every year," like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It doesn't matter how many sequels you make if the content in each one is great. No one complains about how many Harry Potter sequels there are (no one sane any way). People get sick of AssCreed/COD because the sequels are so similar, not because they're sequels.

As for innovation. No, they don't go around inventing new genres. They innovate with their polish.

the number at the end of their newer games isn't the issue. yearly sequels you dont expect much to change, its only a year later. so expecting huge changes to the CoD formula and gameplay between titles isn't reasonable. expecting huge changes between sequels that are TEN years apart is the issue. starcraft 2 is more like a modernizing expansion than a 10+ year later sequel.

diablo 3. they've had YEARS and YEARS to come up with something new and exciting. its exactly the same but dumbed down. and diablo 2 was already pretty dumbed down as it came.

all blizzard is, is a glorified polish machine. they haven't had a real new idea since, well i can't remember.

when you can take two mario games that are 10 years apart and theres WAY more differences between those than between starcraft 1 and 2. then its a problem. i mean MARIO has more innovation and differences in its titles than blizzard games. Call of Duty 1, and MW3 are VASTLY different games and they've had less time to change things than blizzard has.

thats pathetic.

I think they're brave to make as many changes as they do. You have to actually think about their position. This isn't some small indie developer that can now pick and choose its projects because it's had a few successes under its belt. We're talking about one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, development studios.

Also, please don't bring Mario in to this. That's a platformer with simple mechanics, of course they're going to change the core mechanic between sequels, there's no other complexity to that series. Mario nails one or two mechanics in each game and that works brilliantly for them. To say that Starcraft 2 didn't change much, and that Diablo 3 is a dumbed down D2 is to completely ignore all of the mechanics inside of the game. Funnily enough, these are the parts of the games that have changed massively between sequels.

Yes, from the outside they look like the same games but prettied up a bit. However, if you actually compared how they played, you'd see the hard work. I don't even know why I'm typing this out at this point, I just had that moment in my head where you just realise you've spent 5 minutes thinking about stuff that should be painfully obvious.

EDIT:

Here's what the developer has to say about "innovation" (2 minutes 28 seconds) :

This thread has been hilarious to read, oh you guys.

To me blizzard means diablo, warcraft, and a load of other games i dont care about

@Panpipe: i didn't see you post the video, I just found it over on gamespot and posted on the first page :P

@gamefreak9 said:

@Panpipe: i didn't see you post the video, I just found it over on gamespot and posted on the first page :P

Heh. I see that we're pretty likeminded about D3. Have fun on Tuesday.

Snow Storm.

Rock and Roll Racing, and a bunch of games I don't really care for.

• Quality
• Great art styles
• Fantastic Music
• Quality
• Predictable but still good stories.
• Never going to launch a new franchise, ever.
• Polish on other companies ideas
• The Apple of the gaming universe?

Minipets

Experts at taking existing ideas and refining them to the utmost extent. They rarely come up with wholly new ideas but they implement others' amazingly well.

man I did not realize there were so many Blizzard haters out there.

A tasty diary treat?

Seriously, I think of WoW and all the good times I had while playing it. I also probably think of Blizzcon and what a hell of a lot of fun it is.

man I did not realize there were so many Blizzard haters out there.

@lockwoodx said:

@Slag said:

man I did not realize there were so many Blizzard haters out there.

Blacklisted since 09. The Blizzard of today is not the blizzard of yesterday sadly.

They've blacklisted you or you've blacklisted them? just curious

no company stays the same unfortunately, especially after getting acquired. They seem to have fared far better than Bioware e.g.

@Slag said:

@lockwoodx said:

@Slag said:

man I did not realize there were so many Blizzard haters out there.

Blacklisted since 09. The Blizzard of today is not the blizzard of yesterday sadly.

They've blacklisted you or you've blacklisted them? just curious

no company stays the same unfortunately, especially after getting acquired. They seem to have fared far better than Bioware e.g.

its not really hate, it's more of the "hate the big guy type". Lots of people don't like fitting in! Power to them!

Overrated comes to mind. I see why people enjoy their games, but I personally have never cared for a Blizzard game outside of Warcraft 3. I just find their IP's to be extremely dull and the world/stores to be copy cats of other ones that do it better. I'm sure I will get a ton of hate replies, but that's just been my POV on them.

Same old stuff.

SC2 was fun, but I thought RTS games like Company of Heroes (though set in WWII, a tired setting indeed) with their cover based gameplay set the bar higher for the genre.

I expect D3 to be the same thing, but I'll get it anyways.

However I will not be buying heart of the swarm, in favor of just watching the game being played on youtube. Save myself $60.

Well, I think of Blizzard as a developer that changed gaming for me. World of Warcraft was one of the first online games I played when my family got decent internet (Verizon DSL at the time). My friends couldn't stop talking about WoW, so on my birthday I ended up buying it and was hooked. I haven't stopped playing it since.

Diablo 2 was a game like WoW where people couldn't stop talking about it, but I never ended up buying it until just recently as with most of Blizzards other PC games. I look forward to playing Diablo 3 this upcoming Tuesday though.

I loved what I played of Starcraft 2...well, the single player. I just suck in multiplayer when it comes to RTS games.

I never played any of their really old stuff so I can't say anything about those.

So yea, Blizzard to me is basically the developer that got me into playing online games on my computer.