Company News Blizzard Entertainment 20-Year Anniversary

[7hm]

Blizzard supports their core like most other developers don't even think of doing.

The complaint about starcraft 2 in most of the media I read was that they didn't innovate at all, that it was a prettier version of Starcraft. I'm willing to bet that's what Diablo 3 will end up being as well.

People who liked starcraft didn't want starcraft FPS, they wanted more of the same. That's what they got.

And aside from that, they do probably the best QA around. Other companies could take a lesson from Blizzard. When's the last time you bought a Blizzard game and said "man there's a lot of bugs" in this thing.

Just think how few companies you can say that about. (cough obsidian cough all rpg developers cough)

 

[Disconnected]

Do you honestly believe that they're all being fooled into thinking they're having fun when they're really not?

Being ripped off & entertained are not mutually exclusive states.

I have to admit, though, I really couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. Nobody does sequels better than Blizzard, which is fucking lovely if you like the originals (and I do). And really, why care about the sequels at all, if one dislikes the originals?

.... Still, I hope D3 has optional WASD movement & mouse facing/reticle aiming. It's much less fiddly.

 

[Yeesh]

Being ripped off & entertained are not mutually exclusive states.

Perhaps not, but being entertained by a game for 30+ hours/month* while paying $15/month is mutually exclusive with being ripped off by that game's devs.

*And for better or worse, 30+ hours/month is on the low end for a dedicated player. I'm not saying it's not a waste of your life, I'm just saying it can't be described as a rip off.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Gotta go with yeesh on this one, blizzard hasn't "raped" any of their classics to any large degree

They did with Starcraft II. As many flaws WoW had, it was still a "Blizzard" game. Starcraft II is the first game to brake that trend. Its a decent RTS but it just feels too average, they broke that sense there was something special to their games which even WoW had.

 

[Bigot_]

Gotta go with yeesh on this one, blizzard hasn't "raped" any of their classics to any large degree

They did with Starcraft II. As many flaws WoW had, it was still a "Blizzard" game. Starcraft II is the first game to brake that trend. Its a decent RTS but it just feels too average, they broke that sense there was something special to their games which even WoW had.

So what do you mean it "feels too average"
As in compared to what multiplayer RTS game standards is it a large enough decline from sc1 that you consider it rape

And what in the holy fuck does "it isn't a 'blizzard' game anymore" even mean
Sounds like an edgy mouth full of nothing to me
Is there a special trademark blizzard taste to the game that you can just identify when you lick the cd or what

 

[malko_sundervere]

You two are blindingly fucking stupid

You're seriously trying to judge the worth of an mmo by using codexian single player RPG standards?

Words can hurt, y'know.

I never said that. I said, "give some concrete reasons why WoW is *good*."
Do you mean to tell me that the single measure of competence in game design in MMORPGs is "how many people play the game?" Because you could find a lot of people who would pay monthly for a horse to piss in their mouths, but that doesn't mean that waterhorsets (horse + watersports) is a great sport, now. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with MMORPGs. But that's just me. If the genres are different enough to merit a different grading criteria, then please: Provide that criteria.

 

[Arcanoix]

None of their games hooked me up for more than a few hours, except the original Starcraft. They're the most overrated developer in the history of digital entertainment. Fuck 'em.

Says you. I've spent more time playing WoW or Diablo 2 than any other game in existence. Same goes for many people. They might not make classic rpgs, but the games they do make are fun and addicting as hell. That's their biggest drawback, really. It's hard to take a break. I've been playing Diablo 2 again since November and I just quit yesterday. I still can't stop thinking about it.

WTB Diablo 3.

No, you don't.

Having attended their convention last year, I can say with no regrets that they're so bad it's not even funny. Yes, some of them seem to be okay - but one salary increase = leaving the development of WoW to morons like GhostCrawler. Ever since Ulduar the game has been in complete and total decline. If you were there for the panels on Diablo 3 (I've yet to release my footage) you'll see that they had two fucking points to make with the Demon Hunter class - they wanted her sexy and GRIMDARK - yes, they actually said GRIM and DARK back to back.

During my play time with the demo, I zerged through shit as a Warrior/Beserker/Whatever class I played. Fucking plowed through that shit with no skill whatsoever. Chug potion, BLAM BLAM BLAM, chug potion, run run run, BLAM BLAM BLAM, chug potion, BLAM BLAM BLAM. Blizzard has no right to say they make ANYTHING even close to an RPG. The last good game I played from them was probably Lost Vikings. . .

 

[bonescraper]

They might not make classic rpgs, but the games they do make are fun and addicting as hell. That's their biggest drawback, really. It's hard to take a break. I've been playing Diablo 2 again since November and I just quit yesterday. I still can't stop thinking about it.

Dialbo II can be pretty addictive... if you're mentally handicapped. The game is all about spamming the LMB all the time. How's that different from "press A and something awesome happens"? The graphics were shit even on release and managed to give me a good headache. The environments were so bland i couldn't force myself to go beyond the fisrt act. And i really wanted too see what's so good about this game. I stopped caring after my 3rd approach.

And why the hell is this topic in general RPG discussion? Bllizzard never made a role playing game, and i'm pretty sure they'll never make one of the Codex.

 

[Yeesh]

Dialbo II can be pretty addictive... if you're mentally handicapped. The game is all about spamming the LMB all the time. How's that different from "press A and something awesome happens"? The graphics were shit even on release and managed to give me a good headache. The environments were so bland i couldn't force myself to go beyond the fisrt act. And i really wanted too see what's so good about this game. I stopped caring after my 3rd approach.

How very Codexian of you to attack the game's graphics, but your derision is sorely misplaced. Diablo II's graphics hold up pretty well to 2D games made nowadays, and Diablo II is from 12 years ago. The sprites, the ambiance, and the animation were all of superior quality compared to other 2D games at the time (and many now).

It would be easier for mentally handicapped sub-humans such as myself and others who greatly enjoyed Diablo II to understand just how far down you must stoop (from your mighty tower wrought of pure intellect) in order to even communicate with us... if you didn't say such stupid shit. Oh, Diablo II is all about clicking with the mouse, is it? Do you think maybe that's because it's an action-oriented game on the PC? Would you care to revolutionize PC gaming by making an action-oriented game on this platform that does not involve a lot of clicking on things? That will be a real step forward, because I must confess that many of us have been laboring under the colossal misconception that the fucking mouse is the most important aspect of the PC control scheme! Please, won't you save us by taking the clicking out of PC games?

 

[Xor]

Gotta go with yeesh on this one, blizzard hasn't "raped" any of their classics to any large degree

They did with Starcraft II. As many flaws WoW had, it was still a "Blizzard" game. Starcraft II is the first game to brake that trend. Its a decent RTS but it just feels too average, they broke that sense there was something special to their games which even WoW had.

Yeah, SCII was disappointing as hell. It wasn't a bad game, I just expected better from Blizzard. My main two problems with it were the single player campaign (fucking stupid story) and their custom map support (completely shit compared to SC1 and WC3). I haven't touched it in months and I certainly won't be getting the expansions.


Also, keep fighting the good fight with your words, Yeesh.

 

[GarfunkeL]

you'll see that they had two fucking points to make with the Demon Hunter class - they wanted her sexy and GRIMDARK - yes, they actually said GRIM and DARK back to back.

Is she?

 

[DaveO]

Fixing bugs in Diablo 2 is not accurate at best. There are character skills still broken even with the newest patch. Try a Spear using Amazon as a good example.

 

[circ]

How very Codexian of you to attack the game's graphics, but your derision is sorely misplaced. Diablo II's graphics hold up pretty well to 2D games made nowadays, and Diablo II is from 12 years ago. The sprites, the ambiance, and the animation were all of superior quality compared to other 2D games at the time (and many now).

D2 came out around the same time as the classic, if not necessarily good, IE iso RPG's from BW and Black Isle came out. And it was a hell of a lot worse looking than any of those. Hell, I can think JA2 still looks good even on crap resolutions, but D2? Not really. It had graphical portions that reminded me of a C64 game.

 

[Xor]

The fact that they even support the game at all at this point is impressive. It's been, what, 10 years since LoD came out? When you look at the game at that point (patch 1.07 IIRC) and the game now, it's changed quite a bit - they added skill synergies, some new GUI features, a whole host of new items and runewords, and the uber bosses. I can't think of a single other non-subscription based game that has received that much support from its creators over the years.

 

[Yeesh]

D2 came out around the same time as the classic, if not necessarily good, IE iso RPG's from BW and Black Isle came out. And it was a hell of a lot worse looking than any of those. Hell, I can think JA2 still looks good even on crap resolutions, but D2? Not really. It had graphical portions that reminded me of a C64 game.

Is that so? If you're saying that the completely pre-rendered (or hand drawn, or whatever) backgrounds of IE games look better than the procedurally generated random terrain of Diablo II, then that's a point I'm comfortable conceding. But why don't you take a closer look at the character sprites. Take a closer look at the animations. Are you actually going to maintain that IE sprites and IE animations are superior to those in Diablo II? What about visual character customization and differentiation? Each Diablo II class is a lot more visually distinct than the characters in IE games, and while neither engine supported any sort of true see-what-your-wearing ragdoll graphics, a single player character in Diablo II had a lot more variations in his wardrobe than one in an IE game.

Again, I don't think graphics are really the point. But I also think Diablo II's are better than IE, except for those pretty, pretty backdrops.

 

[bonescraper]

How very Codexian of you to attack the game's graphics, but your derision is sorely misplaced. Diablo II's graphics hold up pretty well to 2D games made nowadays, and Diablo II is from 12 years ago. The sprites, the ambiance, and the animation were all of superior quality compared to other 2D games at the time (and many now).

You've got to be fucking kidding. Both Diablo 2 and Icewind Dale were released in the same day. That's June 29th 2000. Icewind Dale is one of the best looking 2d role playing games ever made. And it's animations, spell effects and art direction are not even it the same league as Dialbo's. I'm no graphics whore, but when the environments look bland and uninspired, the art direction is mediocre and the color palette consists of 32 colors, i'm rather unimpressed. And come on, the animations? I remeber 2 frame death scenes and shit like that. That's superior quality? hahaohwow.jpg

It would be easier for mentally handicapped sub-humans such as myself and others who greatly enjoyed Diablo II to understand just how far down you must stoop (from your mighty tower wrought of pure intellect) in order to even communicate with us... if you didn't say such stupid shit. Oh, Diablo II is all about clicking with the mouse, is it? Do you think maybe that's because it's an action-oriented game on the PC? Would you care to revolutionize PC gaming by making an action-oriented game on this platform that does not involve a lot of clicking on things? That will be a real step forward, because I must confess that many of us have been laboring under the colossal misconception that the fucking mouse is the most important aspect of the PC control scheme! Please, won't you save us by taking the clicking out of PC games?

Nice rant. But how does it change the fact that Diablo II is a one huge and mindless one-button clickfest? That's the best Blizzard has to offer?

Again, I don't think graphics are really the point. But I also think Diablo II's are better than IE, except for those pretty, pretty backdrops.

And i think that Dragon Age 2 looks better than The Witcher 2 and Halo looks Better than Crysis :durrhurr: Discuss!

 

[Yeesh]

You've got to be fucking kidding. Both Diablo 2 and Icewind Dale were released in the same day. That's June 29th 2000. Icewind Dale is one of the best looking 2d role playing games ever made. And it's animations, spell effects and art direction are not even it the same league as Dialbo's. I'm no graphics whore, but when the environments look bland and uninspired, the art direction is mediocre and the color palette consists of 32 colors, i'm rather unimpressed. And come on, the animations? I remeber 2 frame death scenes and shit like that. That's superior quality? hahaohwow.jpg

Wow, your proof is mesmorizing. Post some screenshots of how inferior the Diablo II sprites and animations are to the IE sprites and animations, or cease this completely spurious graphic whoring bullshit. You're talking out your ass.

Nice rant. But how does it change the fact that Diablo II is a one huge and mindless one-button clickfest? That's the best Blizzard has to offer?

First, you're misrepresenting. Diablo II uses both mouse buttons. I'm not sure what version or difficulty level you played where you didn't have to use your skills, but you just might be way better than the rest of us so I'll just salute your manliness. But most people play with one hand on keyboard hotkeys, and the other working the mouse by moving it and clicking it, as you've said.

Second, I'm sorry you missed my point so badly. Let me try again. Calling an action game on PC a "clickfest" is every bit as valid as calling a complex strategy game with a lot of hotkeys a "button presser". It means nothing. You're saying nothing. Let me repeat that once more: You are not making a point when you say a PC game is a clickfest. Everything we do on the computer low these past two decades has been a "clickfest".

Except roguelikes, of course.

Again, I don't think graphics are really the point. But I also think Diablo II's are better than IE, except for those pretty, pretty backdrops.

And i think that Dragon Age 2 looks better than The Witcher 2 and Halo looks Better than Crysis :durrhurr: Discuss!

I really wasn't the one who brought graphics up. But you're obviously biased if you don't just think one game looks better, but you actually think it's so mockably preposterous for anyone to have a different opinion. You get that, right? Blizzard was a large gaming concern even back then, and they had a small army of experienced sprite artists and animators. You're crapping on the game because you don't like it, not because of the actually quality of the art assets. Which again, who cares. But still.

 

[Johannes]

Blizzard supports their core like most other developers don't even think of doing.

The complaint about starcraft 2 in most of the media I read was that they didn't innovate at all, that it was a prettier version of Starcraft. I'm willing to bet that's what Diablo 3 will end up being as well.

People who liked starcraft didn't want starcraft FPS, they wanted more of the same. That's what they got.

And aside from that, they do probably the best QA around. Other companies could take a lesson from Blizzard. When's the last time you bought a Blizzard game and said "man there's a lot of bugs" in this thing.

Just think how few companies you can say that about. (cough obsidian cough all rpg developers cough)

Maybe that was the main complaint of the media, but if you ask Starcraft players you hear a bit different story... Main gripes would be that the game is just not well designed enough, and/or too dumbed down. And multitudes of gripes about the Bnet, which wouldn't be as bad if it was possible to host alternative servers and ladders but it's not. And campaign which was kinda lackluster too.
Sure it's not a bad RTS per se, but it's nothing special either. Or the thing that makes it special is the tournament scene, that is easier to get into as a player than into SCBW - but I'm not interested in being a professional gamer so fuck that.

 

[circ]

When's the last time you bought a Blizzard game and said "man there's a lot of bugs" in this thing.

Man, that graphic card frying feature was awesome. Would buy again.

 

[Metro]

WoW ruined them from a quality perspective. I'm not saying WoW is bad for what it is, just saying it stunted their creative growth. They've actually gotten better in terms of the content produced for WoW and were it not for the $15 monthly fee/MMO format it would be a really good free-to-play (minus the game+expansions) ARPG.

As it stands it isn't that great of a value unless you are the type of person who would otherwise buy multiple AAA $50 titles every month.

 

[Yeesh]

As it stands it isn't that great of a value unless you are the type of person who would otherwise buy multiple AAA $50 titles every month.

Do you mean would otherwise buy ONE $50 title every 3 months? Because WoW is slightly cheaper than that. And gives you 90+ hours of play in the same timeframe.

Again, what a waste of your life. But if you think WoW is a bad deal, then you're not going to be happy with anything other than free games. And good for you*. But shut up. It's like a vegetarian explaining how bad steak tastes.

(*No, seriously, good for you! I've plugged a zillion hours into Stone Soup this month and it hasn't cost me a dime. But that doesn't mean that every game has to be free or it's a bad value.)

And also, you know that so-called "free to play" MMORPGs are only free to play if you don't want to be competitive, right? They have a much, much higher potential cost if you get into them than WoW's $15/month.

 

[circ]

Good for you, thinking 15 bucks a month for a loot simulator and prepubescant kids spamming you with LOL LOL KILL ITZ LOL! is good value for money.

 

[Metro]

And gives you 90+ hours of play in the same timeframe.

That contention is as subjective as the ones you deride me for making. Given the four to six month gaps in between content (and sometimes even longer) the bulk of that ~25 hours a week is probably going to be straight up loot grinding -- having played WoW I know countless hours are chewed up just sitting around in a capital city, checking the Auction House or waiting for a group/trying to find something to do (whereas for most single player games you just hit the ground running without the prep/busy work). And yes, some people find that fun, although when you have to pay to run the same dungeons over and over and over again I do call its value into question.

While the expansions are priced at $40, you can argue the content patches in the interim cost anywhere from $60 to $90 depending on the production cycles. It's true you could just subscribe for one month after a content patch and stop when it gets boring/repetitive but the somewhat insidious nature of WoW is that most of the weight behind grinding instances and reputation is reliant on you playing perpetually/using that gear for the next content patch.

What I mean by the multiple $50 AAA reference is that if you're the type of person who regularly expends that much on gaming then obviously WoW will seem like a bargain. Compared to other gaming choices? Not so much. Is that opinion. Of course. So is most of the stuff on here -- it's a forum.

 

[Yeesh]

Good for you, thinking 15 bucks a month for a loot simulator and prepubescant kids spamming you with LOL LOL KILL ITZ LOL! is good value for money.

And gives you 90+ hours of play in the same timeframe.

That contention is as subjective as the ones you deride me for making. Given the four to six month gaps in between content (and sometimes even longer) the bulk of that ~25 hours a week is probably going to be straight up loot grinding -- having played WoW I know countless hours are chewed up just sitting around in a capital city, checking the Auction House or waiting for a group/trying to find something to do (whereas for most single player games you just hit the ground running without the prep/busy work). And yes, some people find that fun, although when you have to pay to run the same dungeons over and over and over again I do call its value into question.

What I mean by the multiple $50 AAA reference is that if you're the type of person who regularly expends that much on gaming then obviously WoW will seem like a bargain. Compared to other gaming choices? Not so much. Is that opinion. Of course. So is most of the stuff on here -- it's a forum.

Let me see if I can make this clear. Value is a separate question. If you don't like a game, if you don't like a movie, if you don't like a dinner entree, if you don't any sort of experience that people charge money for, then you don't like it. That's great, don't play it, don't watch it, don't eat it. That doesn't make it a bad value. That just means you don't like it.

Obviously if you don't like WoW, then it doesn't matter if the game is free or if it costs $1000 per month. You still won't like it. BUT the value proposition in those two cases is wildly different, yes? And the value proposition needs to be measured for people who do like it, right? Because people who don't like it will just say unintelligent bullshit like "That game's a bad value even though it's free because it sucks". Good for you for having an opinion, but like the vegetarian discussing steak, you're really not in a position to judge. Your personal evaluation of enjoyment per dollar can never be anything other than 0. So if you can't see past that to evaluate the value to people who might actually enjoy the game, you (apparently) are incapable of contributing anything but empty bullshit to the discussion.

A green energy person might not want to buy a Hummer SUV for $1. That doesn't mean you would credit his opinion that at that price the vehicle is a bad deal. A graphics whore might say a Spiderweb game provides 0 hours of gameplay because he wouldn't play a game that looks like that. A man who doesn't like asian chicks says an asian model is ugly because she has slanty eyes and her skin isn't white enough. These people are you. That's your level of discourse. It's not just having your own opinion, for which I deride no one, it's assuming that your preference is somehow tied in to a universal truth about entertainment that 11 million paying customers are missing.

So yeah, I prefer to judge the value of a game by gaming hours per dollar. It's neutral, and it's sensible, and it's real. It's not a "contention".

Speaking to Metro, I accept that not every minute of WoW is a blast. But neither is any other game. I actually loved checking the auction house because I liked making (totally imaginary) money, but yeah sometimes you sat around waiting for this or that. But other games have downtime too, especially deep, non-linear games of the sort we like here. And to my knowledge, no one has ever been forced at gunpoint to play WoW. Having a subscription doesn't stop you from playing other games, doesn't stop you from doing anything else if you're not having enough fun in WoW. They let you log off anywhere. And if you only like playing new content, you can cancel said subscription when you get bored, and Blizzard saves all your characters indefinitely. So they don't blackmail you into playing more than you want to. There's really no basis for saying people don't get their money's worth out of WoW.

 

[circ]

Yeah ok. Except, eating shit isn't an opinion, it's a lifestyle.