Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:57:Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).
Agreed.
What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. Seriously, that has to be one of the most ridiculously irrelevant, unbelievably pointless arguments I've seen made on an internet forum in a long time. This whole conversation has taken a turn for the stupid.
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:02:
yet there are differences too that people using the analogy to make their point conveniently ignore when making said point.
I don't dictate to Blizzard how they make games. But if they can change the direction their game takes from previous iterations (offline SP in the first 2 games, always online DRM for the third), then I can change my buying decisions just as easily.
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:23:
You know what I've always hated about long discussions on Bluesnews? By the time the discussion has reached over a hundred posts, the quote walls are HUGE. One time, there was so many quoted quotes in response to other quoted quotes that in turn were including previous quoted quotes that the thread just exploded. True story!
Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:14:Laptops aren't the best gaming systems, and I really wouldn't want to demote an awesome game (assuming D3 is) to the tiny screen and headphones I travel with.
I have a Dell M6500, the screen is MASSIVE and has plenty, plenty, plenty of horse power to run D3.
Again, some people travel 50%+ for work, internet connections aren't always reliable, no reason not to be able to play a game in SP mode because of that.
I play plenty of "current generation" SP games on my laptop on the road. So yeah, D3's asinine SP online requirement might be a deal breaker for me, I'm not happy about as I have VERY fond memories of dungeon crawling in SP mode for Diablo and Diablo 2.
Hopefully they will consider down the road, then I'll happily buy the game.
Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.
Agreed.
On another note, Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).
Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.
Agreed.
On another note, Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.
Agreed.
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:43:Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:55:This 100 times over. That "we don't understand" or "programmers had to" stuff is such utter BS.To support offline mode, the designers have to re-work the UI to show online and offline heroes in a way that makes sense but doesn't detract from the majority of gamers who'll never have offline heroes.
Come on man, this has been supported for over a decade by many games. Absolutely NOTHING new about supporting SP and MP.
Diablo 2 did it 10+ years ago with supporting SP, MP (LAN), AND MP (Battle.NET).
Darks wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:09:RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:47:jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:
You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.
I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.
Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.
It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.
You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.
As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.
As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.
As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.
I meant inept in the sense of dev cycles. Name one thing that SC2 does game play wise, that any C&C game hasn't done with the exception of C&C 4 that didn't have base building. To be honest I'd rather play C&C Generals than Warcraft3 or Starcraft 2 just on personal preference. SC isn't fun MP, every game is a 5 minute base rush online and the cpu ai cheats solo. Meh sorry not impressed.
I could care less how many copies they sell based solely on the Blizzard brand name, the fact of the matter is their titles graphically look worse 99 out of 100 times compared to others in their respected genres due to their long cycles, never innovate, and imo at the least are over rated because to me they are no better or play really any different than other titles put out by other developers in less time.
With one exception, I though Diablo 1 was one of the greatest games of it's time and really that was made by Condor who Blizzard bought after they pitched the title to them in the first place.
My biggest gripe about Blizzard would be that they get so caught up in the, I don’t want to change anything; we just want to make it look better and play better. They still can’t think outside the box. They refuse to update their games to a more modern look and feel. And what I mean by that is, why is it that we still can’t use the keyboard to move your char around with why is it that we still have lack of control over the camera and lack of rotating the camera?
The best answer I can come up with is that Blizzard is afraid to change anything for fear that it would upset many of their fan bases. I personally can’t stand the camera being locked down. To me, I need a camera more like Dungeon Siege or Sacred 2.
Same goes for their cookie cutter Suck Craft 2. All they did with that game was give it a shiny new coat of paint. The game is still pretty much the same. All you guys got was a new story to go along with that new coat of paint.
Blizzard needs to take more chances with their games, and they really do need to stop taking 5 years to develop a game. They got an endless supply of money coming in, there’s no excuse for not having a good sized team that can get the job done quicker.
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:47:jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:
You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.
I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.
Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.
It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.
You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.
As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.
As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.
As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.
I meant inept in the sense of dev cycles. Name one thing that SC2 does game play wise, that any C&C game hasn't done with the exception of C&C 4 that didn't have base building. To be honest I'd rather play C&C Generals than Warcraft3 or Starcraft 2 just on personal preference. SC isn't fun MP, every game is a 5 minute base rush online and the cpu ai cheats solo. Meh sorry not impressed.
I could care less how many copies they sell based solely on the Blizzard brand name, the fact of the matter is their titles graphically look worse 99 out of 100 times compared to others in their respected genres due to their long cycles, never innovate, and imo at the least are over rated because to me they are no better or play really any different than other titles put out by other developers in less time.
With one exception, I though Diablo 1 was one of the greatest games of it's time and really that was made by Condor who Blizzard bought after they pitched the title to them in the first place.
Krovven wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:15:Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 11:57:
Of course there is no valid reasoning behind the move, your suspicions are correct. The Guild Wars analogy is dead out of the gate but inexplicably people still use it to attempt to invalidate reasonable frustrations at a disastrously stupid move by an otherwise fantastic development studio.
Why is it invalid Prez? Because you say so?
Guild Wars and Diablo are both games you can play solo, both games you can play online with friends or random people. Only argument you've given is that Diablo 1 and 2 had offline single player options, so that means Diablo 3 should too. It's been 12 years since Diablo 2 was released, things have changed. Just because it's predecessor did something doesnt automatically mean the sequel should too.
jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:
You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.
I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.
Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.
It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.
You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.
As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.
As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.
As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:55:This 100 times over. That "we don't understand" or "programmers had to" stuff is such utter BS.To support offline mode, the designers have to re-work the UI to show online and offline heroes in a way that makes sense but doesn't detract from the majority of gamers who'll never have offline heroes.
Come on man, this has been supported for over a decade by many games. Absolutely NOTHING new about supporting SP and MP.
Diablo 2 did it 10+ years ago with supporting SP, MP (LAN), AND MP (Battle.NET).
Laptops aren't the best gaming systems, and I really wouldn't want to demote an awesome game (assuming D3 is) to the tiny screen and headphones I travel with.
You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:51:You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors. I would think a game like D3 would be similarly inappropriate. Maybe not in first class?
Be great to play D3 while traveling for 4 hours on an airplane
nin wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:05:Sorry, I forgot the rest of the world isn't as ridiculous as America. Most of my flights are domestic. And our ears bleed and eyes pop at even the faintest hint of public profanity and nudity.You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors.
Oh please. On a flight to London, they showed Training Day, with every profanity intact.