CDPR CEO: Rockstar, Blizzard & Bethesda Are The World’s Top Three Game Developers

[sullynathan]

oh shit, I made this thread

 

[Correct_Carlo]

You can shit on Blizzard, but they at least try new stuff. Rockstar and Bethesda just do the same shit over and over. Valve used to try new stuff, but hasn't been seriously focusing on games for the past decade.

 

[ilitarist]

You can shit on Blizzard, but they at least try new stuff. Rockstar and Bethesda just do the same shit over and over. Valve used to try new stuff, but hasn't been seriously focusing on games for the past decade.

Funny how tables had turnes. I remember around WC3 and Diablo 2 people complained about Blizzard just moving into genres and making a good conservative version of a game in that genre. But then people complained about Diablo 3 being too different. Heard it's dumbed down but haven't played it. But then Hearthstone was a move into a genre no one cared about.

Meanwhile Rockstar and Bethesda blew everyone's mind back at the time of Daggerfall, Morrowind, GTA3 and San Andreas. But since than they make the same games, just bigger, more detailed. With GTA at least I don't think there are people that complain about older games being radically better. Plus Rockstar at least tried to make something different like Max Payne 3.

 

[CptMace]

I remember around WC3 and Diablo 2 people complained about Blizzard just moving into genres and making a good conservative version of a game in that genre.

What the actual fuck.

But then Hearthstone was a move into a genre no one cared about.

Ubisoft has their might and magic card game, a shit ton of similar stuff as mobile games (which qualifies hearthstone as well btw). It's a very obvious move, even dota gets a card game now. And it would have had one even if hearthstone didn't exist. They're cheap to make and sell like crazy, plus are very easily portable to mobile, which is the juicy market of people who don't play video games, but actually do.

Meanwhile Rockstar and Bethesda blew everyone's mind back at the time of Daggerfall, Morrowind, GTA3 and San Andreas. But since than they make the same games, just bigger, more detailed. With GTA at least I don't think there are people that complain about older games being radically better. Plus Rockstar at least tried to make something different like Max Payne 3.

Yeah that was my point. The three of them blew up in early 2000's but the major difference of Blizzard is
1) they're very agile and dip their toes in a lot of genres, which unlike what is written earlier itt isn't an obvious characteristic of big studios
2) they're pc-oriented, they've started as a pc game company, but they still make games focused on keyboard mouse gameplay (diablo III, hots, overwatch are playable on console, but nobody in their right mind would deny that it plays best on pc). Bethesda and Rockstar are arguably less concerned by this, Skyrim and Fallout 4 are completely tainted by the degenerate gamepad controls, gta5 too with its fucking wheel.

Now the problem is, people have a very hard time admitting this, because their lack of wisdom makes them consider this as the equivalent of praising blizzard. Or think that solid game means good game. Or whatever shit their sick mind will come up with.

 

[Farage]

blizzard

 

[ilitarist]

And it would have had one even if hearthstone didn't exist.

I seriously doubt that. M&M card game is a rare example that no one cared about. It would get 3 times as much resources after Hearthstone - they didn't even market it properly. There were also small indie games, I quite liked Spectromancer. But now everyone makes card games - both as flaship and companion titles. This just wouldn't happen without Blizzard, this is the genre they've rejuvinated the way, say, XCOM had ressurected turn-based tactics game in a way that influenced a lot of modern games. Even back at Starcraft time they've helped RTS genre popularity but they were far from hegemon at the time - Command & Conquer, Age of Empires series were probably just as big as StarCraft. I suspect that in 20 years Blizzard would be remembered as codifiers of MMORPG genre and computer collectible card games the way we remember Westwood as RTS guys today.

I've heard a lot of people claiming Diablo 3 works great on consoles. Never played it there so can't be sure. Also Hearthstone is perfectly playable on mobile/tablets.

 

[CptMace]

I've heard a lot of people claiming Diablo 3 works great on consoles. Never played it there so can't be sure. Also Hearthstone is perfectly playable on mobile/tablets.

Yeah managing the inventory on console is lots of fun.
Never said hearthstone wasn't playable on mobile, I even suggested the contrary. I specifically wrote diablo III, hots and overwatch. And now that I check, hots isn't even on console, I guess i got confused with the myriad of fucking mobas out there.

M&M card game is a rare example that no one cared about.

You haven't paid much attention to the context of Hearthstone development then. Duel of Champions is the game that put card games back in business in their digital form, not Hearthstone. It's the game that got rid of random ressource generation and put the emphasis on tactics with their 2x4 grid. It's DOC that inspired WOTC to change their business model for their magic video game adaptations, going from pay to play shit game to free to play shit game.
Hearthstone simply reused that, but Blizzard being a veteran of dealing with retards, they replaced the tactical aspect by a RNG fest of bullshit.
The only reason doc didn't work is that ubisoft was reworking their catalog of ip's for investment purposes, and M&M got tanked. The game wasn't supported and shut down 2 years after, causing great butthurt. It had a huge player base a few months after release.
Thinking Blizzard rebooted the card game genre, when it was already exploding on mobile (something you seem to purposefully ignore) and doc had shown there was a market on pc, is purely delusional.

Typical reddit thread from hearthstone first year btw.

I suspect that in 20 years Blizzard would be remembered as codifiers of MMORPG genre

They already are though.

 

[ilitarist]

Never saw that exploding mobile market of mobile card games. Just as I still don't believe Duel of Champions ever had any relevance. It's a game with no wikipedia page and with 4 reviews on metacritic. Steam says it had 6000 players at its peak. I doubt anyone had noticed it and by the time it was released Hearthstone was already in beta.

Also wasn't most of Hearthstone mechanics based on WoW card game instead of being lifted from anywhere?

 

[CptMace]

It had its own launcher, I never played through steam. Also I think it was put on steam in the later years, on top of that.
It was basically the only card game besides mtg's adaptations before hearthstone. And mtg was terrible because wotc didn't give a fuck.
I didn't even know there was a wow card game. Now I guess I could recognize my lack of knowledge here, or I could assume that if I didn't know about, it must have been pretty irrelevant. wink wink.

ps : just type card game in your android or apple store. There are a couple of games, yeah.
ps2 : i have no idea how to support my shit claim anymore please let's all forget about it. hum.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Who the hell played GTA for the deep "gameplay."

Let's be honest here, the reason GTA was and is popular is the total fucking mayhem of having weapons, vehicles, explosives at your behest in a sandbox city. The only reason there will be no GTA 6 or GTA 5 Single Player DLCs is because people are having fun wrecking shits in GTA Online.

 

[ilitarist]

There are games like Just Cause or Saint's Row that allow for bigger booms than GTA. People love GTA for being relatively authentic and detailed.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

And guess what, both Eidos and Voilition utterly failed to deliver with Just Cause 3 and Saints Rows games after the third one which was quite warmly welcomed.

Not a single person I know IRL played GTA 1 to 4 for the story and deep gameplay. Heck we don't even do the fucking story. Playing GTA is about turning on the cheat and do the most ridiculous thing possible in the game.

And by any indication, most people also do that. Look the number of GTA V. Look at any forum discussing the series. I doubt you will find "Hur durr this game gameplay so good. Wonder what the sequel could improve on the gameplay."

What people want is a detailed Sandbox, which GTA V delivered, and the ability to do insane shits, which with GTA Online become more fun due to multi-player. It is the core of GTA series and Rockstar delivered on that.

Whether the Kodex like it or not, as I said in my original post, is besides the point.

 

[Ash]

Funny how in my previous post I was saying non-gamers/casuals either rage quit old school GTA citing difficulty, or freeroamed for 15 mins to an hour until they got bored [and didn't actually play the game as truly intended]. What, you think the devs created hundreds of main missions, side missions, secret missions, expensive story scenes, collectables etc just because?
Most people are non-gamers, and you're just proving my point.

Yes when I buy games I intend to play them to the fullest as intended by design (if they're good, which GTAV isn't) and actually get my monies worth. Sandbox gameplay where you aimlessly fuck around like a child in a sandpit (hence "sandbox") is no substitute for a well-designed experience. Still fun to do but in any open world game my ratio of time spent doing actual designed gameplay with pre-defined rules and events to sandbox gameplay is like 10:1.

Now lets say that you are actually a gamer above casual, then consider the reason you place no value in GTAV's designed content is maybe because it's actually just crap, and declined over classic GTA games.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Well that's the point. You Mr. True Gamer Extraordinaire is in the minority regarding how GTA games are played.

People have expectation on what GTA games should be and Rockstar delivered. Do you think the checklist missions are the reason GTA series was, is, and will be popular? People might do it for the challenge to do a 100% completion, but that's honestly not the reason the series is popular.

There is a reason that the series always had built in cheat in them.

 

[Ash]

Well that's the point. You Mr. True Gamer Extraordinaire is in the minority regarding how GTA games are played.

Fixed.

I'm not brilliant, I just have the basic sense to actually get my monies worth, and consume the actual engaging intended vision of the game. Doesn't mean you can't fuck about sandbox here and there too, I sure as shit do it. It's just no substitute for meticulously designed gameplay.

Would be like starting New Vegas, going off exploring for a bit but not actually clearing places out, beat up some harmless NPCs in Novac, don't talk to anyone or do any quests, input some console commands to "increase the fun", and then wondering why I'm bored after an hour.
That's how dumbfucks play these games. Makes sense in GTAV where the content ain't worth much and creating your own fun is better, but older GTAs had pretty decent content.