Blizzard fanboys are reaching hights of apple fanboys, presenting lack of features as feature itself and getting high scores for it, is ... depresing ...
I just wanted to add that Apple is another corporation that lives off of some perceived notion of greatness and polish, when in fact everything they do is complete bollocks. I loathe Apple more than any other company. They are trying to ruin computing as I know it.
The only difference here is that Jobs only really ever had the one good idea, and he could not keep a lid on that, and it was stolen and done a hundred times better. He is simply a master of spin and marketing. Morons that froth at the mouth for every new shiny plastic doorstop that comes from them make me sick.
I love you Dubhlaith... Not in gay way, but in a manly way (if that makes sense)
I just want to add my name to the growing list voicing their concern about the distinct lack of anything substantial to make this game interesting or different from the original. I do understand that RTS games are uniquely complex to design, but this is not an excuse for what is essentially a reskinning of an old game with some new units and elements. Some of the terrain things are interesting, with the moving up cliffs as ground units, but this is extremely minor for someone that was very familiar with transport use.
I believe this is just one more example of how the people running Blizzard now are totally incapable of having decent ideas on their own, and they are simply using the ideas of other people who have now left and are making their own games (notably, Guild Wars and GW2). Blizzard now is nothing, and is continuing to ride on the mastery of others. Even WoW has become much less polished than it once was, and every new feature feels tacked on and many of them feel ridiculous. StarCraft II has nothing that was hoping for. I was just hoping for something to indicate there was something real beneath what I could see. Sadly, it is not true, and this is just the final proof for me that Blizzard will never make another good game.
Your basing your opinion on a MULTIPLAYER BETA and that's just wrong, the multiplayer will mostly play the same as that is what thousands enjoy this is not the crap that was pulled with DOW1 & DOW2 or the now shameful C&C, Starcraft is the only pure RTS left.
Each race gets about 6 new units some exisiting units have different mechanic's and abilities as you stated there are differences to the terrain system as well as high ground system and armour system than in SC1, there are watch towers and destructable rocks on the maps to mix things up. There's plenty in Multiplayer to make it more than just a reskin.
But as I said your reviewing SC2 and condeming it on the muiltplayer component (that you obviously done enjoy) and that is not fair. Thats like forming an opinion of an MMO on it's crafting system alone.
Originally posted by Malevil Blizzard fanboys are reaching hights of apple fanboys, presenting lack of features as feature itself and getting high scores for it, is ... depresing ...
I just wanted to add that Apple is another corporation that lives off of some perceived notion of greatness and polish, when in fact everything they do is complete bollocks. I loathe Apple more than any other company. They are trying to ruin computing as I know it. The only difference here is that Jobs only really ever had the one good idea, and he could not keep a lid on that, and it was stolen and done a hundred times better. He is simply a master of spin and marketing. Morons that froth at the mouth for every new shiny plastic doorstop that comes from them make me sick.
I love you Dubhlaith... Not in gay way, but in a manly way (if that makes sense)
I am a woman, but I think I do understand. I accept your platonic love as an expression of your loathing of Apple. Seeing someone else with that loathing makes me joyous. The more the merrier.
As for Expresso (as an aside, that is not how the beverage is spelled, fyi), I actually did quite enjoy StarCraft, and I do somewhat enjoy SC2. The point is that it is not substantial different. You could not even dispute this in your post. Some few things are different, and the degree to which these difference affect long-term gameplay remains to be seen.
The point I was trying to make in my posts was that the people designing games for Blizzard now are incapable of creating substantially new ideas; they are unable or unwilling or afraid to deviate from the formula that work so well for the people that made StarCraft (and WarCraft, and Diablo). The people running the company now do not have the vision and the love of gaming that made Blizzard the company to beat a decade ago. I had an ultimate brand loyalty to Blizzard. I have probably purchased six copies of StarCraft for myself and others.
The point is that the Blizzard that is Blizzard now is not the Blizzard that was Blizzard years ago. They are coasting on the work of people that left the bloating hell hole of a company and gave Activision the finger. Whatever quality this game retains is based on the work and skill of people long gone from the company. I have no faith in them. It was waning quite a great deal due to their floundering and destruction of WoW, which, when it was released, was a pretty good game.
They are revolting to me as Jobs and Apple are revolting to me, as a slimy man is revolting to me. They survive on marketing and spin, they attract the weak and the helpless customer to their games and then pounce. There is no innovation. Yes, StarCraft was good. But that was a long long time ago. Innovation is needed to retain my attention. Arenanet has me wet and ready and presenting the sacred yoni of my wallet to them. With Blizzard, as with Apple, my legs are crossed and my jaw is set. They are getting none of this, if you follow the metaphor.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The point I was trying to make in my posts was that the people designing games for Blizzard now are incapable of creating substantially new ideas; they are unable or unwilling or afraid to deviate from the formula that work so well for the people that made StarCraft (and WarCraft, and Diablo). The people running the company now do not have the vision and the love of gaming that made Blizzard the company to beat a decade ago. I had an ultimate brand loyalty to Blizzard. I have probably purchased six copies of StarCraft for myself and others.
The point is that the Blizzard that is Blizzard now is not the Blizzard that was Blizzard years ago. They are coasting on the work of people that left the bloating hell hole of a company and gave Activision the finger. Whatever quality this game retains is based on the work and skill of people long gone from the company. I have no faith in them. It was waning quite a great deal due to their floundering and destruction of WoW, which, when it was released, was a pretty good game.
They are revolting to me as Jobs and Apple are revolting to me, as a slimy man is revolting to me. They survive on marketing and spin, they attract the weak and the helpless customer to their games and then pounce. There is no innovation. Yes, StarCraft was good. But that was a long long time ago. Innovation is needed to retain my attention. Arenanet has me wet and ready and presenting the sacred yoni of my wallet to them. With Blizzard, as with Apple, my legs are crossed and my jaw is set. They are getting none of this, if you follow the metaphor.
I fully agree. I mentioned it in another thread that Blizzard seems to have changed (thread 'Come on Blizzard, you can do better!' ), that many people don't seem to have realized. Like a football team or basketball team, even if they have had great years, the mix of their teams changes continuously too, and with those changes team results can become less than they were.
Comparing the (relatively) innovative and refreshing Warcraft 3, Starcraft and WoW vanilla with Blizzard's results of the last few years and what I've seen from D3 and SC2, I'm inclined to believe that either their very best creative talents that stood at the base of those successes 5-10 years ago have left the company or have become overshadowed by an influx of the mediocre, or they've been put onto the new MMO Blizzard is working on, leaving the rest to be made by the lesser gods.
That 2nd option is what I hope, what I fear is the 3rd option: that Activision's influence is invading further and further into Blizzard's core practices and policies. I've read about Bobby Kotick, and I find his vision about gaming utterly cynical and repulsive. People like him will rip the heart and soul out of a gaming bizz and make it into a cold money making machine, nothing more.
At the moment, I'm having my hopes up more for companies like a CCP, Bioware as a gaming company in general, and ArenaNet.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Originally posted by cyphers Originally posted by Dubhlaith
The point I was trying to make in my posts was that the people designing games for Blizzard now are incapable of creating substantially new ideas; they are unable or unwilling or afraid to deviate from the formula that work so well for the people that made StarCraft (and WarCraft, and Diablo). The people running the company now do not have the vision and the love of gaming that made Blizzard the company to beat a decade ago. I had an ultimate brand loyalty to Blizzard. I have probably purchased six copies of StarCraft for myself and others. The point is that the Blizzard that is Blizzard now is not the Blizzard that was Blizzard years ago. They are coasting on the work of people that left the bloating hell hole of a company and gave Activision the finger. Whatever quality this game retains is based on the work and skill of people long gone from the company. I have no faith in them. It was waning quite a great deal due to their floundering and destruction of WoW, which, when it was released, was a pretty good game. They are revolting to me as Jobs and Apple are revolting to me, as a slimy man is revolting to me. They survive on marketing and spin, they attract the weak and the helpless customer to their games and then pounce. There is no innovation. Yes, StarCraft was good. But that was a long long time ago. Innovation is needed to retain my attention. Arenanet has me wet and ready and presenting the sacred yoni of my wallet to them. With Blizzard, as with Apple, my legs are crossed and my jaw is set. They are getting none of this, if you follow the metaphor.
I fully agree. I mentioned it in another thread that Blizzard seems to have changed (thread 'Come on Blizzard, you can do better!' ), that many people don't seem to have realized. Like a football team or basketball team, even if they have had great years, the mix of their teams changes continuously too, and with those changes team results can become less than they were.
Comparing the (relatively) innovative and refreshing Warcraft 3, Starcraft and WoW vanilla with Blizzard's results of the last few years and what I've seen from D3 and SC2, I'm inclined to believe that either their very best creative talents that stood at the base of those successes 5-10 years ago have left the company or have become overshadowed by an influx of the mediocre, or they've been put onto the new MMO Blizzard is working on, leaving the rest to be made by the lesser gods. That 2nd option is what I hope, what I fear is the 3rd option: that Activision's influence is invading further and further into Blizzard's core practices and policies. I've read about Bobby Kotick, and I find his vision about gaming utterly cynical and repulsive. People like him will rip the heart and soul out of a gaming bizz and make it into a cold money making machine, nothing more.
At the moment, I'm having my hopes up more for companies like a CCP, Bioware as a gaming company in general, and ArenaNet.
This is part of the problem. I do not want to demean you by saying this, but the ignorance of what happened at Blizzard is very prevalent and I think it is very bad for gamers in general, Activision Blizzard being so huge.
It began when Blizzard was acquired by Vivdendi. Vivendi's practices (much like Activision's), did not sit well with Blizzard's "by gamers, for gamers" mentality. The head developers and designers were hard at work on pre-production for WoW at the time. Around the time WoW was ready to go, you had almost all the lead devs, designers, and writers jump ship at the same time. Check out searchable info on ArenaNet, Flagship Studios, and Red Five Studios. These are all companies founded by people that left Blizzard in a rage because of a lack of innovation and the stifling of creativity by Vivendi (Activision is doing the same thing now, and your fears about Kotick are spot on).
A combination of Blizzard excelent and aggresive spin machine and the contracts of those that left kept this "schism" very quiet. Most people have no idea that NONE of the people that made ANY of the epic Blizzard titles that gave it its name and its glory work for them any more.
Unfortunately, the only company that grew from this that is doing very well is ArenaNet, because they got what seems to be a very good deal with NCSoft. NC, believe (and this is all theorycrafting) had the money to spare, and was willing to drop some money on a risky endeavour (Guild Wars) made by people it knew to be brilliant and innovative. The bet paid off, and now I think NC just lets ANet do whatever they want. I like it that way, to be frank.
So you see, your first fear is actually what has happened. The Blizzard I knew and loved is gone, and will never come back. The great minds have split up and gone their separate ways. Red 5 is comprised of Blizzard North people from Diablo, and they are still doing their famous "we will not tell you what we are doing, but we promise it will be awesome" routine, but Diablo was a crowning achievement, so I am keeping tabs on them to see what goes down there.
Blizzard no longer has employees that remember the cardinal rule of creativity. In gaming, as in bed, and in many other things, the man who can continue to come up with new moves is the one that will keep me coming back for more.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
basically Blizzard HAS to release SCII the way they are now... SC has turned into such a big e-sport game that any attempt at ruining that with Heroes, No Base Build, No Gathering or whatever would make the game flop...
In some cases a remake IS better than a sequel... StarCraft is such a case... others would be: DAoC and Planetside
and to all those who say Blizzard has lost their creativity... what about the CoD franchise? none of the CoD fanbois ever realised they bought the same game with expansion pack grade updates 6 times !
maybe Blizzard just thinks "why fix what isn't broken?" both gameplay and sales wise...
I agree, SC has become such a successful e-sports game in Korea that current Blizzard teams didn't dare to tinker too much with the formula. And a remake of DAoC and Planetside would be awesome
Yes, the CoD franchise is ofc the same: but isn't that exactly why the two lead people who stood at the base of CoD success have left Infinity Ward? If you read the story behind their leaving, them getting screwed and pushed to leave company even after they delivered the spectacular succes of Modern Warfare 2, it pictures exactly the kind of money hungry, creativity-stifling and sequel spurning company that Activision seems to have become, and slowly signs of this are noticeable in Blizzard as well. Activision took Infinity Ward over, Activision screwed Zampella and West over the way they fired them. It's not for nothing that you see a large number of the creative talents of the Modern Warfare teams leaving the company as well, the climate has become toxic and morale low.
No wonder, if you consider that Activision has been pushing the former Infinity Ward people to create sequel after sequel, and then the top people don't even get the appreciation and respect for their success but get screwed over.
And this, Activision, is the firm that also owns Blizzard...
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
They are revolting to me as Jobs and Apple are revolting to me, as a slimy man is revolting to me. They survive on marketing and spin, they attract the weak and the helpless customer to their games and then pounce. There is no innovation. Yes, StarCraft was good. But that was a long long time ago. Innovation is needed to retain my attention. Arenanet has me wet and ready and presenting the sacred yoni of my wallet to them. With Blizzard, as with Apple, my legs are crossed and my jaw is set. They are getting none of this, if you follow the metaphor.
No trouble following that metaphor. Just tread along the vast swath of destruction inflicted by innuendo. in-yo-end-oh!
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
.Around the time WoW was ready to go, you had almost all the lead devs, designers, and writers jump ship at the same time. Check out searchable info on ArenaNet, Flagship Studios, and Red Five Studios. These are all companies founded by people that left Blizzard in a rage because of a lack of innovation and the stifling of creativity by Vivendi (Activision is doing the same thing now, and your fears about Kotick are spot on).
yes, I knew a number of them had jumped ship to ArenaNet and Flagship - that's why I appreciated ANet right from the start - but I had thought there were still a number of that original top talent left at Blizzard. If what you're picturing is the current situation then it's a very gloomy picture regarding Blizzard's future as a 'by gamers, for gamers' firm.
Especially if you include what I mentioned in my last post, how Activision has treated the top talents of their other cash cow, Modern Warfare 2.
and @mmo_doubter: hey, that's the way of the world, we all know that. That doesn't mean we have to like it or support it. Companies or teams that manage to keep their heart, their guts and their creativeness in the way they do stuff will have my kudos right from start, and I will look with more interest to the games they deliver. I wish Vince Zampella and Jason West all the best.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
and @mmo_doubter: hey, that's the way of the world, we all know that. That doesn't mean we have to like it or support it. Companies or teams that manage to keep their heart, their guts and their creativeness in the way they do stuff will have my kudos right from start, and I will look with more interest to the games they deliver. I wish Vince Zampella and Jason West all the best.
I think the only way to have real creativity in MMOs is to start very small (even tiny) and grow the game from there. The smaller the cost before release - the fewer creative sacrifices have to be made to appease the bean-counters.
That has problems of its own, of course. Payment method, for one.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
The thing is, Starcraft is still unsurpassed in the category of RTS's with quick visceral action, it's got more micromanagement and better balance than almost anything out there imo.
It's freaking hard to really improve on that.
Balance was amazing for the different races and units in the original. Just an incredible job in that regard. By far, the best thing about the game.
You know something? I cannot believe they didn't come out with a fourth race. That is a huge disappointment to me.
i was expecting a 4th race as well, but i think perhaps they didn't feel war3 was as balanced as starcraft was because they added a 4th. dunno really, only really good explanation i can accept.
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
look everyone is saying that sc2 is the most balanced rts and im going to tell you its not. i see alot of my clan m8s playing the game and using 1 or 2 unit strategies now when people focus on 1 or 2 units that means theres something wrong with the other units this is basic stuff guys.
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
That does make more sense, from a business/financial point of view.
Instead of 1 sequel to sell, you'll have at least 3 games to sell (that fans will buy anyway, incl me) plus maybe one extra expansion in which the 4th race is revealed.
Plus you run less the risk that gameplay will be imbalanced: when a 4th race perhaps will be released it'll be a few years from now, gamers will have had time to 'adjust' to and embrace the new Starcraft and e-sports competitions will have had the chance to lift off, without the risk of imbalance and all the flaming and raging about a 4th race.
As said, from a business point of view, safer and more profitable.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
look everyone is saying that sc2 is the most balanced rts and im going to tell you its not. i see alot of my clan m8s playing the game and using 1 or 2 unit strategies now when people focus on 1 or 2 units that means theres something wrong with the other units this is basic stuff guys.
Maybe they do, but I'd recommend watching the SC2 tournament games that have been going in which The Little One played ( see here and here )
Watching his games will show you clearly that a variety of ingenious tactics can be used.
I loved for example how he used his ghosts and the nuke weapon threat to harass and defend against opponents: go look it up on youtube, a recommended viewing for SC2 fans.
edit: some more information about Vivendi, Activision and Blizzard.
The merger makes Activision parent company of Vivendi Games former division.
Bobby Kotick, once head of Activision, was announced to become President and CEO of Activision Blizzard.
And about Bobby Kotick:
Kotick is a controversial figure in the press and gaming community. This is in part due to advocating a business strategy focused on developing intellectual property which can be exploited over a long period, occasionally to the exclusion of creating new, risky or niche titles. Kotick was challenged over his "comfort level" around high prices attached to "new games that have some expensive controllers" (presumably the Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk and DJ Hero franchises), and said, "If it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."
Kotick received significant criticism from enthusiasts and the media for stating, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The thing is, Starcraft is still unsurpassed in the category of RTS's with quick visceral action, it's got more micromanagement and better balance than almost anything out there imo.
It's freaking hard to really improve on that.
Balance was amazing for the different races and units in the original. Just an incredible job in that regard. By far, the best thing about the game.
You know something? I cannot believe they didn't come out with a fourth race. That is a huge disappointment to me.
i was expecting a 4th race as well, but i think perhaps they didn't feel war3 was as balanced as starcraft was because they added a 4th. dunno really, only really good explanation i can accept.
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
I certainly haven't had any conversations with anybody from Activision in six months or a year. We did a little presentation for the board of directors, but it was literally just like, "And here's what we're doing. Thank you." That's all it was
So lets lay to rest this myth that activision call the shots, they don't.
As to SC2 I applaud blizzard for sticking to their guns, Look at DOW2,CnC4 & Supcom2 all worse than their original games because they messed to much with a winning formula.
SC2 has loads of changes in single player, 29 mission campaign, story mode space, research options, Challenge maps, ingame cinematics. SC1 had a breifing screen between missions and that was all. The Multi-player does no mess too much with what thousands love and that is how it should be.
The thing is, Starcraft is still unsurpassed in the category of RTS's with quick visceral action, it's got more micromanagement and better balance than almost anything out there imo.
It's freaking hard to really improve on that.
Balance was amazing for the different races and units in the original. Just an incredible job in that regard. By far, the best thing about the game.
You know something? I cannot believe they didn't come out with a fourth race. That is a huge disappointment to me.
i was expecting a 4th race as well, but i think perhaps they didn't feel war3 was as balanced as starcraft was because they added a 4th. dunno really, only really good explanation i can accept.
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
I certainly haven't had any conversations with anybody from Activision in six months or a year. We did a little presentation for the board of directors, but it was literally just like, "And here's what we're doing. Thank you." That's all it was
So lets lay to rest this myth that activision call the shots, they don't.
As to SC2 I applaud blizzard for sticking to their guns, Look at DOW2,CnC4 & Supcom2 all worse than their original games because they messed to much with a winning formula.
SC2 has loads of changes in single player, 29 mission campaign, story mode space, research options, Challenge maps, ingame cinematics. SC1 had a breifing screen between missions and that was all. The Multi-player does no mess too much with what thousands love and that is how it should be.
Change for change sake is not instance win.
This post says NOTHING.
How often does a section segeant speak to the battalion commander? Hint: once every 6mo for biannual training briefs, unit dependant.
Your post supports the argument that 'Project Lead Designers' do not have direct discourse with 'Parent Company Oversight' or the like. Ok, big surprise? Not really. But nice attempt at glazing that one over.
Reminder: Kotick recently assigned a position to 'oversee' Morhaime. This is a more accurate representation of Activition (Kotick, the guy in charge of Activision-Blizzard) having their hand in Blizzard's (Morhaime, the guy in charge of Blizzard) soup bowl.
Yes, we know that 'Blizzard maintains creative independence from Activision' ... on paper. So too did Infinity Ward ... on paper. And we know their story.
Edit: Read the article. Based on the Q&A wording, there's also no way to know that this isn't just PR. Blizzard is known for it, especially considering having plenty of blemishes on their record that the average gamer never hears about.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
SC 1 only had briefing screens? Really now..How long has it been since you played SC 1? You dont remeber watching the Terrans run over the Zergling only to get ambushed by the Hydralisks? Or the rise of the Sons Of Korhal? SC 1 granted didnt have tons of ingame cinematics fact I belive it had around 3 or 4 per campaign branch.
30 missions sounds about right for SC2. BW added less and cost in and around 30-40 if I recall at the time. 60 dollars is a bit to high for SC2 especially for something being broke into three parts. Though with the other changes, I will buy the first installment and then later decide if the others are worth buying. If just more missions most likely will pass.
Ehm, because people like Bobby Kotick are CEO of Activision Blizzard and his business philosophy maybe?
Saying that that has no influence at all is like saying that Rupert Murdoch will keep his Republican beliefs to himself and won't meddle with his media imperium. Actually that's exactly has he stated he would do, and Fox News that's owned by him indeed states that they're 'fair and balanced' in bringing the news.
In short: thinking that the top management and their business philosophies and vision will have no influence on the rest of the companies is an illusion. Depending on the sort of managers they are and the period of time involved that influence can be low key or insistent. But to me, the whole drama around MW2 and its lead designers getting canned and a lot of the other designers leaving, the way Activision is handling that plus Bobby Kotick's confirmed statements show clearly what sort of culture is being cultivated within Activision.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
So I was playing a 1vs1 match. No one I knew, just some random. I expected attacks frequently, but none came. So I thought "Oh, okay, you want a build up match " (I like to play defensively and expand, then unleash a torrent of hell)
So we built up. 10 minutes passed. Nothing. 20 minutes. Nothing. 30... nothing. I was thinking "Is this guy still here?"
So I built up a few Hydras for the hell of it and a Nydus, set a hydra up in an overlord, sent it over to his single expansion (I owned the rest of the map... >.>) and hit the Nydus Worm. Sent in a swarm of Ultralisks. Okay... going alright. Then he hits me with two battlecruisers, and I'm thinking "... Fleet battle it is "
So I start swarming my base with corruptors for the sheer hell of it. I mean, I was messing around, just amusing myself, when: He attacks one of my expansions with a fleet made up of Banshees and Battlecruisers. I was about to send my corruptors after him (and the couple of Brood Lords I set up just in case he had ground) when he made his way straight to my main base. Okay. He see's my corruptors, turns the battlecruisers only on them, and keeps the Banshees going after my buildings. So what did I do? Split my forces. Two little groups picked off banshees at a quick rate, the rest took out the battlecruisers. He was down to a quarter of his fleet left, so what does he do?
He quit XD No GG, no talking whatsoever (I'd tried to talk earlier in the game). He just straight out quit, and I'm there thinking "Are you serious? That was IT? Now he's probably going to go off and whine that the game is too hard."
Low and behold, I find him whining about Zerg air units being super overpowered on the forums. I can't remember his name, but wow. Really. Just... wow... What did the guy expect? He went ENTIRELY air, and I used a single ANTI Air unit to rip him a new hole ._. I was going to then swarm him with ground via a nydus worm, keeping the skies free with the corruptors. He wanted a build up game. WTF do some people expect?
But yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that thusfar the multiplayer aspect of this game is too "Been there, done that" (Though I'm anxious to sink my teeth in to D3... Le sigh), and feels weird at the same time. I mean, really. Some of the new units just feel... pointless. Like the Roach for example. It's just a Hydra that can move while burrowed. And the Hydra still exists in multi. Whats the point of having BOTH? Give the Hydra the ability to move while burrowed and you don't waste a unit spot to have two units which have far too similar roles.
Some of the new units are pretty cool (Infestor ) while some just seem really bland (Phoenix -.-;)
Some are just reskinned old. Yay.
The only things that seem of value are POTENTIALLY the single player (Why play solo when you can play with a mate though :P), and the massive mod potential. The multi just seems so utterly bland. Keep in mind the above was but one game which I thought funny enough to post about. I've had many, many others, some against some rather nasty opponents ._.;;
Then the wipe hit >.> And I just... bah... cbf with the beta right now. Theres more interesting stuff out there in beta
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
You're misinterpreting what happened at Infinity Ward. Those guys were already out the door. They sold out their company then didn't like having to answer to Actiblizz so they made preparations to bail. Then they were fired and their friends, who were also planning on leaving, did too. We'll see how much they like answering to EA.
I don't think I am misinterpreting: the lead guys Zampella and West were fired under accusations of 'insubordination' (see here) and a large group of current and former IW employees are suing Activision, claiming breach of contract and seeking unpaid royalties and bonuses.
As the article here states: "They allege that Activision violated California labor codes and deliberately withheld deserved payments related to the success of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 "in an attempt to keep the employees hostage so that Activision could reap the benefit of the completion of Modern Warfare 3."
Truth is always in the middle (although in this case I tend to credit the IW employees more than the likes of Bobby Kotick and other Activision Blizzard management), but this does not sound like a happy working environment.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
Nowand I am being serious does any 1 want a Starcraft 2 beta key? I should be getting a spare one some time this week that I won in a competition (CVG) - its an EU key so EU peep only please. First to PM me get's it.
You *think*. An expressed opinion. But let's form those based on facts shall we?
Activision's name doesn't appear because of the clout that Blizzard has (clout, directly observable when considering the Blizzard name has stuck on the holding company tag). Blizzard can sit in the same ring and trade punches. Studios like Infinity Ward who didn't have a two-plus decade history of established games don't have that kind of clout. Under a merger (any merger, in this case- Activision-Blizzard's), you still have a chain of command. Ironic, or fitting, that the President of said merger came from Activision? Let me say that again: you still have a chain of command. For lawsuit reasons, fraud-protection etc, there is a trail of paperwork, orders, information relay that exists within that corporate structure. To glaze over the fact that at its head is Kotick... ya I don't know what to say to you.
Perhaps you're not up to speed on common business practices involving 'channels' and 'sections'?
If I wanted to influence your work, I don't need to get in your face about it. I say something to your boss. I say something to your boss' boss. I watch your boss like a hawk, and make him feel the pressure. Why dirty my own hands? Also, why micro-manage like that? Why not put a bud in the ear of an individual who is in a position of oversight for many different projects, rather than just the one you're slaving over?
You're asking for an Activision screen? Meh, whatever floats your boat. Some of us around here aren't wearing blinders when reviewing newsfeeds over the past decade involving nigh *ALL* of the designers from Diablo I and II jumping ship when Blizz was bought by Vivendi. Nigh *ALL* the original leads from WoW jumped ship after their contracts expired after patch 1.12 shipped. (Well damn, isn't that over half of Blizzard's IPs? That's odd.) Kotick firing the 2 geniuses behind Infinity Ward on a whim. Followed with newsfeeds of Kotick assigning 'someone to oversee' Morhaime... ya, some of us can read between the lines, and don't need it spelled out via Activision splash.
Highlight in red:
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
But hey man- if you want to wear blinders and sing the tune of a spring day, that's your prerogative. But don't make erroneous claims as to specific corporate structures you know nothing about and commonplace business practices, distort or ignore facts to support your point of view. While it should be said that ultimately no one on these boards can say with absolute certainty what goes on inside of the brick and mortar in Irvine, CA, there is validity in using triangulation based on observable facts, trends, and newsfeeds regarding their business and business practices.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Only problem there is that Blizzard, really Vivendi holds 52% share in Blizzard Activision voting Kotick has CEO and President. Vivendi turned over most of their shops Sierra being the biggest to Activision leaving only really Blizzard as the sole entity in Vivendi and Bliazzard Activison as a holding company for them. At any time Blizzard did not like Kotick with 52% he would be gone. His power over Blizzard is limited to convincing them he is right in what he is doing. When they disagree Blizzard will do its own thing because they can control any shareholder votes. Also having 52% allows them the option to stop any trades of Blizzard property by Activison and can institute the sale of their "Blizzard shop" to another company with a simple majority vote.
Now just who controls that 52% is speculation because I do not know if it is separate members in Vivendi or if they own the shares as the entity Vivendi/Blizzard and thus make decision through an internal panel.
Any how Kotick is like a dog on a leash when it comes to Blizzard. He can bark all he wants, but they can yank the chain and choke him every now and then to show him who is boss if they want.
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
Nowand I am being serious does any 1 want a Starcraft 2 beta key? I should be getting a spare one some time this week that I won in a competition (CVG) - its an EU key so EU peep only please. First to PM me get's it.
You *think*. An expressed opinion. But let's form those based on facts shall we?
Activision's name doesn't appear because of the clout that Blizzard has (clout, directly observable when considering the Blizzard name has stuck on the holding company tag). Blizzard can sit in the same ring and trade punches. Studios like Infinity Ward who didn't have a two-plus decade history of established games don't have that kind of clout. Under a merger (any merger, in this case- Activision-Blizzard's), you still have a chain of command. Ironic, or fitting, that the President of said merger came from Activision? Let me say that again: you still have a chain of command. For lawsuit reasons, fraud-protection etc, there is a trail of paperwork, orders, information relay that exists within that corporate structure. To glaze over the fact that at its head is Kotick... ya I don't know what to say to you.
Perhaps you're not up to speed on common business practices involving 'channels' and 'sections'?
If I wanted to influence your work, I don't need to get in your face about it. I say something to your boss. I say something to your boss' boss. I watch your boss like a hawk, and make him feel the pressure. Why dirty my own hands? Also, why micro-manage like that? Why not put a bud in the ear of an individual who is in a position of oversight for many different projects, rather than just the one you're slaving over?
You're asking for an Activision screen? Meh, whatever floats your boat. Some of us around here aren't wearing blinders when reviewing newsfeeds over the past decade involving nigh *ALL* of the designers from Diablo I and II jumping ship when Blizz was bought by Vivendi. Nigh *ALL* the original leads from WoW jumped ship after their contracts expired after patch 1.12 shipped. (Well damn, isn't that over half of Blizzard's IPs? That's odd.) Kotick firing the 2 geniuses behind Infinity Ward on a whim. Followed with newsfeeds of Kotick assigning 'someone to oversee' Morhaime... ya, some of us can read between the lines, and don't need it spelled out via Activision splash.
Highlight in red:
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
But hey man- if you want to wear blinders and sing the tune of a spring day, that's your prerogative. But don't make erroneous claims as to specific corporate structures you know nothing about and commonplace business practices, distort or ignore facts to support your point of view. While it should be said that ultimately no one on these boards can say with absolute certainty what goes on inside of the brick and mortar in Irvine, CA, there is validity in using triangulation based on observable facts, trends, and newsfeeds regarding their business and business practices.
Like Wise ... see pink above, now calm down and have a cup of tea.
Comments
I love you Dubhlaith... Not in gay way, but in a manly way (if that makes sense)
Your basing your opinion on a MULTIPLAYER BETA and that's just wrong, the multiplayer will mostly play the same as that is what thousands enjoy this is not the crap that was pulled with DOW1 & DOW2 or the now shameful C&C, Starcraft is the only pure RTS left.
Each race gets about 6 new units some exisiting units have different mechanic's and abilities as you stated there are differences to the terrain system as well as high ground system and armour system than in SC1, there are watch towers and destructable rocks on the maps to mix things up. There's plenty in Multiplayer to make it more than just a reskin.
But as I said your reviewing SC2 and condeming it on the muiltplayer component (that you obviously done enjoy) and that is not fair. Thats like forming an opinion of an MMO on it's crafting system alone.
I am a woman, but I think I do understand. I accept your platonic love as an expression of your loathing of Apple. Seeing someone else with that loathing makes me joyous. The more the merrier.
As for Expresso (as an aside, that is not how the beverage is spelled, fyi), I actually did quite enjoy StarCraft, and I do somewhat enjoy SC2. The point is that it is not substantial different. You could not even dispute this in your post. Some few things are different, and the degree to which these difference affect long-term gameplay remains to be seen.
The point I was trying to make in my posts was that the people designing games for Blizzard now are incapable of creating substantially new ideas; they are unable or unwilling or afraid to deviate from the formula that work so well for the people that made StarCraft (and WarCraft, and Diablo). The people running the company now do not have the vision and the love of gaming that made Blizzard the company to beat a decade ago. I had an ultimate brand loyalty to Blizzard. I have probably purchased six copies of StarCraft for myself and others.
The point is that the Blizzard that is Blizzard now is not the Blizzard that was Blizzard years ago. They are coasting on the work of people that left the bloating hell hole of a company and gave Activision the finger. Whatever quality this game retains is based on the work and skill of people long gone from the company. I have no faith in them. It was waning quite a great deal due to their floundering and destruction of WoW, which, when it was released, was a pretty good game.
They are revolting to me as Jobs and Apple are revolting to me, as a slimy man is revolting to me. They survive on marketing and spin, they attract the weak and the helpless customer to their games and then pounce. There is no innovation. Yes, StarCraft was good. But that was a long long time ago. Innovation is needed to retain my attention. Arenanet has me wet and ready and presenting the sacred yoni of my wallet to them. With Blizzard, as with Apple, my legs are crossed and my jaw is set. They are getting none of this, if you follow the metaphor.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I fully agree. I mentioned it in another thread that Blizzard seems to have changed (thread 'Come on Blizzard, you can do better!' ), that many people don't seem to have realized. Like a football team or basketball team, even if they have had great years, the mix of their teams changes continuously too, and with those changes team results can become less than they were.
Comparing the (relatively) innovative and refreshing Warcraft 3, Starcraft and WoW vanilla with Blizzard's results of the last few years and what I've seen from D3 and SC2, I'm inclined to believe that either their very best creative talents that stood at the base of those successes 5-10 years ago have left the company or have become overshadowed by an influx of the mediocre, or they've been put onto the new MMO Blizzard is working on, leaving the rest to be made by the lesser gods.
That 2nd option is what I hope, what I fear is the 3rd option: that Activision's influence is invading further and further into Blizzard's core practices and policies. I've read about Bobby Kotick, and I find his vision about gaming utterly cynical and repulsive. People like him will rip the heart and soul out of a gaming bizz and make it into a cold money making machine, nothing more.
At the moment, I'm having my hopes up more for companies like a CCP, Bioware as a gaming company in general, and ArenaNet.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I fully agree. I mentioned it in another thread that Blizzard seems to have changed (thread 'Come on Blizzard, you can do better!' ), that many people don't seem to have realized. Like a football team or basketball team, even if they have had great years, the mix of their teams changes continuously too, and with those changes team results can become less than they were.
Comparing the (relatively) innovative and refreshing Warcraft 3, Starcraft and WoW vanilla with Blizzard's results of the last few years and what I've seen from D3 and SC2, I'm inclined to believe that either their very best creative talents that stood at the base of those successes 5-10 years ago have left the company or have become overshadowed by an influx of the mediocre, or they've been put onto the new MMO Blizzard is working on, leaving the rest to be made by the lesser gods.
That 2nd option is what I hope, what I fear is the 3rd option: that Activision's influence is invading further and further into Blizzard's core practices and policies. I've read about Bobby Kotick, and I find his vision about gaming utterly cynical and repulsive. People like him will rip the heart and soul out of a gaming bizz and make it into a cold money making machine, nothing more.
At the moment, I'm having my hopes up more for companies like a CCP, Bioware as a gaming company in general, and ArenaNet.
This is part of the problem. I do not want to demean you by saying this, but the ignorance of what happened at Blizzard is very prevalent and I think it is very bad for gamers in general, Activision Blizzard being so huge.
It began when Blizzard was acquired by Vivdendi. Vivendi's practices (much like Activision's), did not sit well with Blizzard's "by gamers, for gamers" mentality. The head developers and designers were hard at work on pre-production for WoW at the time. Around the time WoW was ready to go, you had almost all the lead devs, designers, and writers jump ship at the same time. Check out searchable info on ArenaNet, Flagship Studios, and Red Five Studios. These are all companies founded by people that left Blizzard in a rage because of a lack of innovation and the stifling of creativity by Vivendi (Activision is doing the same thing now, and your fears about Kotick are spot on).
A combination of Blizzard excelent and aggresive spin machine and the contracts of those that left kept this "schism" very quiet. Most people have no idea that NONE of the people that made ANY of the epic Blizzard titles that gave it its name and its glory work for them any more.
Unfortunately, the only company that grew from this that is doing very well is ArenaNet, because they got what seems to be a very good deal with NCSoft. NC, believe (and this is all theorycrafting) had the money to spare, and was willing to drop some money on a risky endeavour (Guild Wars) made by people it knew to be brilliant and innovative. The bet paid off, and now I think NC just lets ANet do whatever they want. I like it that way, to be frank.
So you see, your first fear is actually what has happened. The Blizzard I knew and loved is gone, and will never come back. The great minds have split up and gone their separate ways. Red 5 is comprised of Blizzard North people from Diablo, and they are still doing their famous "we will not tell you what we are doing, but we promise it will be awesome" routine, but Diablo was a crowning achievement, so I am keeping tabs on them to see what goes down there.
Blizzard no longer has employees that remember the cardinal rule of creativity. In gaming, as in bed, and in many other things, the man who can continue to come up with new moves is the one that will keep me coming back for more.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I agree, SC has become such a successful e-sports game in Korea that current Blizzard teams didn't dare to tinker too much with the formula. And a remake of DAoC and Planetside would be awesome
Yes, the CoD franchise is ofc the same: but isn't that exactly why the two lead people who stood at the base of CoD success have left Infinity Ward? If you read the story behind their leaving, them getting screwed and pushed to leave company even after they delivered the spectacular succes of Modern Warfare 2, it pictures exactly the kind of money hungry, creativity-stifling and sequel spurning company that Activision seems to have become, and slowly signs of this are noticeable in Blizzard as well. Activision took Infinity Ward over, Activision screwed Zampella and West over the way they fired them. It's not for nothing that you see a large number of the creative talents of the Modern Warfare teams leaving the company as well, the climate has become toxic and morale low.
No wonder, if you consider that Activision has been pushing the former Infinity Ward people to create sequel after sequel, and then the top people don't even get the appreciation and respect for their success but get screwed over.
And this, Activision, is the firm that also owns Blizzard...
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
No trouble following that metaphor. Just tread along the vast swath of destruction inflicted by innuendo. in-yo-end-oh!
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Okay - going to switch tacks for a minute:
If creative companies don't like being stifled - then they shouldn't bloody sell out in the first place.
If you deal with the Devil, you don't change him - he changes you.
Too many nerds dream of golden tennis rackets and chocolate hot tubs.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
yes, I knew a number of them had jumped ship to ArenaNet and Flagship - that's why I appreciated ANet right from the start - but I had thought there were still a number of that original top talent left at Blizzard. If what you're picturing is the current situation then it's a very gloomy picture regarding Blizzard's future as a 'by gamers, for gamers' firm.
Especially if you include what I mentioned in my last post, how Activision has treated the top talents of their other cash cow, Modern Warfare 2.
and @mmo_doubter: hey, that's the way of the world, we all know that. That doesn't mean we have to like it or support it. Companies or teams that manage to keep their heart, their guts and their creativeness in the way they do stuff will have my kudos right from start, and I will look with more interest to the games they deliver. I wish Vince Zampella and Jason West all the best.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I think the only way to have real creativity in MMOs is to start very small (even tiny) and grow the game from there. The smaller the cost before release - the fewer creative sacrifices have to be made to appease the bean-counters.
That has problems of its own, of course. Payment method, for one.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
look everyone is saying that sc2 is the most balanced rts and im going to tell you its not. i see alot of my clan m8s playing the game and using 1 or 2 unit strategies now when people focus on 1 or 2 units that means theres something wrong with the other units this is basic stuff guys.
That does make more sense, from a business/financial point of view.
Instead of 1 sequel to sell, you'll have at least 3 games to sell (that fans will buy anyway, incl me) plus maybe one extra expansion in which the 4th race is revealed.
Plus you run less the risk that gameplay will be imbalanced: when a 4th race perhaps will be released it'll be a few years from now, gamers will have had time to 'adjust' to and embrace the new Starcraft and e-sports competitions will have had the chance to lift off, without the risk of imbalance and all the flaming and raging about a 4th race.
As said, from a business point of view, safer and more profitable.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Maybe they do, but I'd recommend watching the SC2 tournament games that have been going in which The Little One played ( see here and here )
Watching his games will show you clearly that a variety of ingenious tactics can be used.
I loved for example how he used his ghosts and the nuke weapon threat to harass and defend against opponents: go look it up on youtube, a recommended viewing for SC2 fans.
edit: some more information about Vivendi, Activision and Blizzard.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment, majority owned by French conglomerate Vivendi SA. The company is the result of a merger between Activision and Vivendi Games.
The merger makes Activision parent company of Vivendi Games former division.
Bobby Kotick, once head of Activision, was announced to become President and CEO of Activision Blizzard.
And about Bobby Kotick:
Kotick is a controversial figure in the press and gaming community. This is in part due to advocating a business strategy focused on developing intellectual property which can be exploited over a long period, occasionally to the exclusion of creating new, risky or niche titles. Kotick was challenged over his "comfort level" around high prices attached to "new games that have some expensive controllers" (presumably the Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk and DJ Hero franchises), and said, "If it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."
Kotick received significant criticism from enthusiasts and the media for stating, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
actually in the merger kotick owes blizzard
Why do people still believe that Activision has any say in Blizzard games, here is a quote from Dustin Browder (SC2 lead designer) on April 19th 2010- http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/02/blizzards-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2/#continued
I certainly haven't had any conversations with anybody from Activision in six months or a year. We did a little presentation for the board of directors, but it was literally just like, "And here's what we're doing. Thank you." That's all it was
So lets lay to rest this myth that activision call the shots, they don't.
As to SC2 I applaud blizzard for sticking to their guns, Look at DOW2,CnC4 & Supcom2 all worse than their original games because they messed to much with a winning formula.
SC2 has loads of changes in single player, 29 mission campaign, story mode space, research options, Challenge maps, ingame cinematics. SC1 had a breifing screen between missions and that was all. The Multi-player does no mess too much with what thousands love and that is how it should be.
Change for change sake is not instance win.
This post says NOTHING.
How often does a section segeant speak to the battalion commander? Hint: once every 6mo for biannual training briefs, unit dependant.
Your post supports the argument that 'Project Lead Designers' do not have direct discourse with 'Parent Company Oversight' or the like. Ok, big surprise? Not really. But nice attempt at glazing that one over.
Reminder: Kotick recently assigned a position to 'oversee' Morhaime. This is a more accurate representation of Activition (Kotick, the guy in charge of Activision-Blizzard) having their hand in Blizzard's (Morhaime, the guy in charge of Blizzard) soup bowl.
Yes, we know that 'Blizzard maintains creative independence from Activision' ... on paper. So too did Infinity Ward ... on paper. And we know their story.
Edit: Read the article. Based on the Q&A wording, there's also no way to know that this isn't just PR. Blizzard is known for it, especially considering having plenty of blemishes on their record that the average gamer never hears about.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
SC 1 only had briefing screens? Really now..How long has it been since you played SC 1? You dont remeber watching the Terrans run over the Zergling only to get ambushed by the Hydralisks? Or the rise of the Sons Of Korhal? SC 1 granted didnt have tons of ingame cinematics fact I belive it had around 3 or 4 per campaign branch.
30 missions sounds about right for SC2. BW added less and cost in and around 30-40 if I recall at the time. 60 dollars is a bit to high for SC2 especially for something being broke into three parts. Though with the other changes, I will buy the first installment and then later decide if the others are worth buying. If just more missions most likely will pass.
Ehm, because people like Bobby Kotick are CEO of Activision Blizzard and his business philosophy maybe?
Saying that that has no influence at all is like saying that Rupert Murdoch will keep his Republican beliefs to himself and won't meddle with his media imperium. Actually that's exactly has he stated he would do, and Fox News that's owned by him indeed states that they're 'fair and balanced' in bringing the news.
In short: thinking that the top management and their business philosophies and vision will have no influence on the rest of the companies is an illusion. Depending on the sort of managers they are and the period of time involved that influence can be low key or insistent. But to me, the whole drama around MW2 and its lead designers getting canned and a lot of the other designers leaving, the way Activision is handling that plus Bobby Kotick's confirmed statements show clearly what sort of culture is being cultivated within Activision.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
So I was playing a 1vs1 match. No one I knew, just some random. I expected attacks frequently, but none came. So I thought "Oh, okay, you want a build up match
" (I like to play defensively and expand, then unleash a torrent of hell)
So we built up. 10 minutes passed. Nothing. 20 minutes. Nothing. 30... nothing. I was thinking "Is this guy still here?"
So I built up a few Hydras for the hell of it and a Nydus, set a hydra up in an overlord, sent it over to his single expansion (I owned the rest of the map... >.>) and hit the Nydus Worm. Sent in a swarm of Ultralisks. Okay... going alright. Then he hits me with two battlecruisers, and I'm thinking "... Fleet battle it is
"
So I start swarming my base with corruptors for the sheer hell of it. I mean, I was messing around, just amusing myself, when: He attacks one of my expansions with a fleet made up of Banshees and Battlecruisers. I was about to send my corruptors after him (and the couple of Brood Lords I set up just in case he had ground) when he made his way straight to my main base. Okay. He see's my corruptors, turns the battlecruisers only on them, and keeps the Banshees going after my buildings. So what did I do? Split my forces. Two little groups picked off banshees at a quick rate, the rest took out the battlecruisers. He was down to a quarter of his fleet left, so what does he do?
He quit XD No GG, no talking whatsoever (I'd tried to talk earlier in the game). He just straight out quit, and I'm there thinking "Are you serious? That was IT? Now he's probably going to go off and whine that the game is too hard."
Low and behold, I find him whining about Zerg air units being super overpowered on the forums. I can't remember his name, but wow. Really. Just... wow... What did the guy expect? He went ENTIRELY air, and I used a single ANTI Air unit to rip him a new hole ._. I was going to then swarm him with ground via a nydus worm, keeping the skies free with the corruptors. He wanted a build up game. WTF do some people expect?
But yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that thusfar the multiplayer aspect of this game is too "Been there, done that" (Though I'm anxious to sink my teeth in to D3... Le sigh), and feels weird at the same time. I mean, really. Some of the new units just feel... pointless. Like the Roach for example. It's just a Hydra that can move while burrowed. And the Hydra still exists in multi. Whats the point of having BOTH? Give the Hydra the ability to move while burrowed and you don't waste a unit spot to have two units which have far too similar roles.
Some of the new units are pretty cool (Infestor
) while some just seem really bland (Phoenix -.-;)
Some are just reskinned old. Yay.
The only things that seem of value are POTENTIALLY the single player (Why play solo when you can play with a mate though :P), and the massive mod potential. The multi just seems so utterly bland. Keep in mind the above was but one game which I thought funny enough to post about. I've had many, many others, some against some rather nasty opponents ._.;;
Then the wipe hit >.> And I just... bah... cbf with the beta right now. Theres more interesting stuff out there in beta
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
I don't think I am misinterpreting: the lead guys Zampella and West were fired under accusations of 'insubordination' (see here) and a large group of current and former IW employees are suing Activision, claiming breach of contract and seeking unpaid royalties and bonuses.
As the article here states: "They allege that Activision violated California labor codes and deliberately withheld deserved payments related to the success of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 "in an attempt to keep the employees hostage so that Activision could reap the benefit of the completion of Modern Warfare 3."
Truth is always in the middle (although in this case I tend to credit the IW employees more than the likes of Bobby Kotick and other Activision Blizzard management), but this does not sound like a happy working environment.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You *think*. An expressed opinion. But let's form those based on facts shall we?
Activision's name doesn't appear because of the clout that Blizzard has (clout, directly observable when considering the Blizzard name has stuck on the holding company tag). Blizzard can sit in the same ring and trade punches. Studios like Infinity Ward who didn't have a two-plus decade history of established games don't have that kind of clout. Under a merger (any merger, in this case- Activision-Blizzard's), you still have a chain of command. Ironic, or fitting, that the President of said merger came from Activision? Let me say that again: you still have a chain of command. For lawsuit reasons, fraud-protection etc, there is a trail of paperwork, orders, information relay that exists within that corporate structure. To glaze over the fact that at its head is Kotick... ya I don't know what to say to you.
Perhaps you're not up to speed on common business practices involving 'channels' and 'sections'?
If I wanted to influence your work, I don't need to get in your face about it. I say something to your boss. I say something to your boss' boss. I watch your boss like a hawk, and make him feel the pressure. Why dirty my own hands? Also, why micro-manage like that? Why not put a bud in the ear of an individual who is in a position of oversight for many different projects, rather than just the one you're slaving over?
You're asking for an Activision screen? Meh, whatever floats your boat. Some of us around here aren't wearing blinders when reviewing newsfeeds over the past decade involving nigh *ALL* of the designers from Diablo I and II jumping ship when Blizz was bought by Vivendi. Nigh *ALL* the original leads from WoW jumped ship after their contracts expired after patch 1.12 shipped. (Well damn, isn't that over half of Blizzard's IPs? That's odd.) Kotick firing the 2 geniuses behind Infinity Ward on a whim. Followed with newsfeeds of Kotick assigning 'someone to oversee' Morhaime... ya, some of us can read between the lines, and don't need it spelled out via Activision splash.
Highlight in red:
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
But hey man- if you want to wear blinders and sing the tune of a spring day, that's your prerogative. But don't make erroneous claims as to specific corporate structures you know nothing about and commonplace business practices, distort or ignore facts to support your point of view. While it should be said that ultimately no one on these boards can say with absolute certainty what goes on inside of the brick and mortar in Irvine, CA, there is validity in using triangulation based on observable facts, trends, and newsfeeds regarding their business and business practices.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Only problem there is that Blizzard, really Vivendi holds 52% share in Blizzard Activision voting Kotick has CEO and President. Vivendi turned over most of their shops Sierra being the biggest to Activision leaving only really Blizzard as the sole entity in Vivendi and Bliazzard Activison as a holding company for them. At any time Blizzard did not like Kotick with 52% he would be gone. His power over Blizzard is limited to convincing them he is right in what he is doing. When they disagree Blizzard will do its own thing because they can control any shareholder votes. Also having 52% allows them the option to stop any trades of Blizzard property by Activison and can institute the sale of their "Blizzard shop" to another company with a simple majority vote.
Now just who controls that 52% is speculation because I do not know if it is separate members in Vivendi or if they own the shares as the entity Vivendi/Blizzard and thus make decision through an internal panel.
Any how Kotick is like a dog on a leash when it comes to Blizzard. He can bark all he wants, but they can yank the chain and choke him every now and then to show him who is boss if they want.
Like Wise ... see pink above, now calm down and have a cup of tea.