You're just switching gears now, I was responding to what you said only two posts ago. Whether Blizzard is overrated or not is an entirely different discussion. I think disputing whether their games are polished or not is a losers bet though, their games show a considerable amount of polish and refinement that's rarely seen in the industry. Polish doesn't mean having cutting edge graphics or innovative gameplay either. They are generally very consistent, have easy to use interfaces and feature accessible gameplay that still allows for depth.

Maybe they aren't your kind of games and fair enough to each his own but people aren't saying they are polished because of pretty movies.

This comment was edited on Jan 23, 2012, 12:05.

Verno wrote on Jan 23, 2012, 11:26:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2012, 09:50:
Blizzard could shit in a box and it would sell based on their Brand. Which astounds me, their titles aren't any better than others in their respected genres.

You're disagreeing with yourself now. Yeah they could shit in a box and sell it except that they don't do that, they take their time and get it right.

Whether you like Blizzard games or not is a totally different thing than what you posted earlier.

No what I'm saying is their brand name is strong. I realize I'm in the minority but I really don't find their games all that polished, mainly because by the time they ship after their 7-10 year dev cycle they are outdated before they even hit the shelf in both graphics and game mechanics more often than not. Yet people buy it because it says Blizzard on the box.

I guess really good cinematic trailers can do wonders for sales.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2012, 09:50:
Blizzard could shit in a box and it would sell based on their Brand. Which astounds me, their titles aren't any better than others in their respected genres.

You're disagreeing with yourself now. Yeah they could shit in a box and sell it except that they don't do that, they take their time and get it right.

Whether you like Blizzard games or not is a totally different thing than what you posted earlier.

Verno wrote on Jan 23, 2012, 09:29:

Not only that but Blizzard's dev cycles were overly long prior to WoW. It's been obviously to me they lack in project management skills at that company for years.

How many times can you waste your publisher's money restarting a game's development over and over? That their prior owners from Davison & Associates, to Havas SA, to Vivendi/Activision never took a step back and figured out there's some pretty lax management going on there is pretty astounding.

Taking a long time to do something isn't inherently wasteful, Blizzard has proven that time and time again. If anything their approach is more profitable, you're literally arguing against their overwhelmingly massive success using that approach.

Blizzard could shit in a box and it would sell based on their Brand. Which astounds me, their titles aren't any better than others in their respected genres.

Not only that but Blizzard's dev cycles were overly long prior to WoW. It's been obviously to me they lack in project management skills at that company for years.

How many times can you waste your publisher's money restarting a game's development over and over? That their prior owners from Davison & Associates, to Havas SA, to Vivendi/Activision never took a step back and figured out there's some pretty lax management going on there is pretty astounding.

Taking a long time to do something isn't inherently wasteful, Blizzard has proven that time and time again. If anything their approach is more profitable, you're literally arguing against their overwhelmingly massive success using that approach.

Dev wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 17:19:

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 16:43:
I do still stand by the fact that if MMO income can provide the developers the freedom to use 7-10 years to make a deep game that's shipped in a good condition then they aren't that bad for gaming overall.

BUT, if you look at the numbers, there's only one big success in MMO and its blizzard. And they did not NEED the income from that, they had financial successes before that.
Look at the MMO numbers, there's only a couple companies that even break 1 million subscribers
http://mmodata.blogspot.com

A company that wants to make a reasonably successful MMO would be far better off if they planned on hundreds of thousands of subscribers, not millions.
Also doing an MMO doesn't automatically mean free money, you have to basically have an entire dev team keep it going with constant updates and support and new content. You almost need an entire company just for the MMO.

Not only that but Blizzard's dev cycles were overly long prior to WoW. It's been obviously to me they lack in project management skills at that company for years.

How many times can you waste your publisher's money restarting a game's development over and over? That their prior owners from Davison & Associates, to Havas SA, to Vivendi/Activision never took a step back and figured out there's some pretty lax management going on there is pretty astounding.

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 16:43:
I do still stand by the fact that if MMO income can provide the developers the freedom to use 7-10 years to make a deep game that's shipped in a good condition then they aren't that bad for gaming overall.

BUT, if you look at the numbers, there's only one big success in MMO and its blizzard. And they did not NEED the income from that, they had financial successes before that.
Look at the MMO numbers, there's only a couple companies that even break 1 million subscribers
http://mmodata.blogspot.com

A company that wants to make a reasonably successful MMO would be far better off if they planned on hundreds of thousands of subscribers, not millions.
Also doing an MMO doesn't automatically mean free money, you have to basically have an entire dev team keep it going with constant updates and support and new content. You almost need an entire company just for the MMO.

This comment was edited on Jan 22, 2012, 18:59.

I don't think every game NEEDS a 7-10 year dev cycle to be good. But I do think most games are probably up to 4 years already from inception to completion (aside from obviously the yearly sports game updates and the expanded sequels - Batman, Ass Creed, every FPS etc, etc).

I do still stand by the fact that if MMO income can provide the developers the freedom to use 7-10 years to make a deep game that's shipped in a good condition then they aren't that bad for gaming overall. In fact if I did work for a game company I'd much rather work for one who had a nice healthy bank balance so they could afford a "when it's done" mentality instead of the constant pressure of deadlines.

Then again it doesn't have to be MMOs - Steam allows Valve have long dev cycles after all. But any method the core PC developers use to mean they are not reliant on back catalogue sales is fine by me.

I also do hope Bethesda manage to get some kind of easy income flowing too - they can produce some really nice stuff but it's rushed out of the door. If that means a Fallout MMO then I'll be happy but not surprised - I'm guessing they've been working on it for years, I'd expect an announcement very soon and a launch window to come just before the launch of the WOW Kung Fu panda expansion (when subscribers are at their most bored and worried about the upcoming changes). And yes the exact timing of the settlement does make me wonder if they had planned to slap the Rage name on it rather then pay Interplay a penny until Rage failed to set the world alight.

I don't think you are a fanboy, Lorcin, at least not based on the points you've made here. But like other takers, you seem reluctant to examine the potential business-side failures of an admittedly great developer (Though I'd be lying if I didn't say Blizzard hasn't come down a peg or three in my mind with some of the distrubing revelations about Diablo 3).

Business pressures tend to matter less in creative endeavors like game creation, but that is not to say they can't apply and indeed they can even result in better projects. I wholeheartedly disagree with your insinuation that a game needs a 7 to 10 year dev cylce to avoid being bad and/or buggy (which I read into your " name one game..." comment) . Not only is that demonstrably wrong in many recent examples, but the very idea is a head-in-the-sand misconception. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert in creative projects whatsoever, but knowing what I know about business and project management in general, I feel confident in saying cases where there is no way to improve and tighten up the creative process without compromising quality are extremely rare.

s1mon75 wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 05:47:

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:50:

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:28:
I'm on a desktop anyway, not like it goes anywhere and if my internet went down I'd tether my mobile for a couple of hours.

Good luck playing the game across a 3G tether...

Creston

I work on a minesite in Australia, in the middle of a desert. I play EQ2, Wow, BF3, SC2 (Aust and US servers), about 3 weeks of SW:TOR; all on a 3G connection. Its not the fastest, but doesnt cause me any greif.

*eyes fall out*

You guys must have some pretty awesome 3G.

Creston

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 01:25:

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:50:

Good luck playing the game across a 3G tether...

Creston

I doubt always on single player is going to use much bandwidth or be particularly bandwidth intensive - but I did raid ICC on a tether once a couple of years back it's doable (just).

Damn. I tried it once and the lag was so horrible I kept checking to see if the game was frozen...

Creston

Name one studio which consistently produces good quality games which aren't completely bug ridden when shipped and does it on a 2 or 3 year cycle?

Yes the Madden bit was over the top - but this whole argument began with Prez trolling an MMO thread anyway

Ohh Rocksteady I guess but they've only released two games (with recycled assets) - looked for Rockstar as well but GTA IV has also been out 4 years.

*Edit Oh and I'm no blizzard fanboy - think I've had Wow subscribed for a total of 7 months but bought it in vanilla. Never played any of their others much as I don't like RTS and think Diablo is stupid.

Lorcin wrote on Jan 21, 2012, 18:17:
And who know's now Bethesda now they can release their MMO under the Fallout not the shaky Rage label (pretty obvious they settled when they realised nobody wanted a Rage MMO), they also may get a decent influx in cash and actually be able to afford a Q&A department or even a decent engine.

LOL, thats not at all why interplay settled. Its more because they had no case at all. They had even less of one once Masthead settled (for no cash). You can tell interplay was desperate to settle because of the very low amount they settled for. Bethesda probably had settlement offers out there since the start of the lawsuit stuff. It likely even started at a higher amount, but the Caen bros probably got greedy and dragged it out too long.

Remember, the whole thing started because Caen looks to have gotten greedy over the MMO in the first place (trying to charge $50 mil for the MMO rights was an insane amount).

s1mon75 wrote on Jan 21, 2012, 13:30:

Fibrocyte wrote on Jan 21, 2012, 08:42:
Now if you'd just cancel your life this world would be a smarter place.

So if I killed myself, the world would be 'smarter' for it? Wow, I bet you have some proud parents.

In a PvP environment (which this was), spawn camping is an acceptable tactic. It has been in DAoC, EQ, Wow and others. To counter extensive grieving a quality developer prevents this by offering no Valor / Honour after the 2nd or 3rd kill or guards that protect spawners. So realistically, this is a developer issue not a player one. One that Bioware has learnt in the past few days.

It also appears that to the fanboy's, EA / Bioware can do no wrong. And hey thats fine, your opinion is yours to cherish. But quote me, this game is doomed. I'd say in a year it will be Free To Play and most of its revenue will come from Micro Transactions.

I combined a common phrase with a sarcastic slur to point out that you made an idiotic comment. It's not my fault you took it literally.

Prez wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 08:45:

RIIIIGHT so Valve and Blizzard are inept at project management. I bet PC gaming would be much better if they just got in the management team who make the Madden games. We could have Half Life as a yearly game - that sounds like a great idea.

Why is it always the extremes? If Blizzard or Valve were to actually hire people with better project management skills, why would that mean Diablo 2012 or Call of Freeman: Modern Half-Life 3? Is it really that hard to see that massive space in between where improvements can be made without compromising quality? Good companies in all kinds of different industries do it all the time.

Blizzard fanboys are my favorite Prez, the lack of logic they deploy is amusing.

Hey Lorcin name me one good reason Blizzard needs 7-10 years to ship a game, and don't give me the polish excuse because it's tired and old and not really valid.

RIIIIGHT so Valve and Blizzard are inept at project management. I bet PC gaming would be much better if they just got in the management team who make the Madden games. We could have Half Life as a yearly game - that sounds like a great idea.

Why is it always the extremes? If Blizzard or Valve were to actually hire people with better project management skills, why would that mean Diablo 2012 or Call of Freeman: Modern Half-Life 3? Is it really that hard to see that massive space in between where improvements can be made without compromising quality? Good companies in all kinds of different industries do it all the time.

This comment was edited on Jan 22, 2012, 08:52.

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:50:

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:28:
I'm on a desktop anyway, not like it goes anywhere and if my internet went down I'd tether my mobile for a couple of hours.

Good luck playing the game across a 3G tether...

Creston

I work on a minesite in Australia, in the middle of a desert. I play EQ2, Wow, BF3, SC2 (Aust and US servers), about 3 weeks of SW:TOR; all on a 3G connection. Its not the fastest, but doesnt cause me any greif.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 01:26:
Valve's a shitty example since they're about as inept as Blizzard is with project management.

RIIIIGHT so Valve and Blizzard are inept at project management. I bet PC gaming would be much better if they just got in the management team who make the Madden games. We could have Half Life as a yearly game - that sounds like a great idea.

Lorcin wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:28:

Prez wrote on Jan 21, 2012, 18:31:

It was over 10 years between Brood War and SC2. I think someone would have to be just a little naive to think that that wait would have still been as long were there no WoW to milk. It has been a terribly long wait for Diablo 3 as well, but even worse, Blizzard is turning even it into some sort of MMO abomination with its idiotic cash shop and always online singleplayer requirement. Because of their ability to monetize WoW no doubt. Two game series that practically defined my gaming youth changed for the worse because of MMO influence.

No, you really can't convince me that MMO's aren't the bane of modern gaming. Like I said, I don't expect others to agree, but I loathe MMO's to my gaming core.

Well it's taken Valve 8 years to release 2 DLC episodes for HL2 so far so 10 years for a full blown sequel from one of the top tier companies I guess is becomming more frequent. HL1 > HL2 gap was 6 years, Bioshock to Bioshock Infinite 5 years (Bioshock 2 doesn't count). Elder Scrolls 4 > 5 was almost 5 years etc etc

Diablo 3 had been announced for nearly 4 years now - Blizzard might just be even slower than Valve.

I agree the cash shop is probably bad - but hopefully it means they've made a bloody difficult game. Got the skills to get to the end? Fine go ahead. Stuck on level 4? $5 get's you a sword of thawcking. Hopefully it's aimed at people to dumb or uncoordinated to play the game.

As for always on single player - that's purely antipiracy which for me I don't really mind. I'm on a desktop anyway, not like it goes anywhere and if my internet went down I'd tether my mobile for a couple of hours.

Valve's a shitty example since they're about as inept as Blizzard is with project management.

Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2012, 00:50:

Good luck playing the game across a 3G tether...

Creston

I doubt always on single player is going to use much bandwidth or be particularly bandwidth intensive - but I did raid ICC on a tether once a couple of years back it's doable (just).