Draugr wrote on Jan 28, 2012, 16:58:
Alamar wrote on Jan 28, 2012, 16:17:
Couldn't wade through all the comments saying mostly the same thing...
But what I find curious is the reaction to the way Blizzard has worked (successfully) for what, 15-20 years...
Like any development company, games or otherwise, they come up with an early list of features, and flesh them out... As their long long ass development goes on, some features just don't feel as good in the game as they did on paper...
The choice at that point is to either spend more time on them, or not... Some features they don't like, they've been iterating on 'forever', and feel they're important enough to keep in... Others, not so much...
The biggest difference in this process now, compared to what it was when everyone loved Blizzard, is that they're more vocal now... Let that stew : ) They have always dropped intended features from every one of their (major franchise) games.
And while 'when it's done' means something to one person, I've always felt that to Blizzard, it meant, when the product is high enough quality for it to ship; not when every single feature they (or you) ever wanted in there, is perfect.
And lastly, as much as any of our Blue's readers want this in their (grubby little) hands (minus those griping about the 'new' greedy Blizzard), Blizzard wants it out that much more than you : )
Blizzard business practice as usual, with more visibility...
Yeah, stuff gets cut all the time, and people are none the wiser, I wouldn't even consider it a matter of them being more vocal, it's just they usually don't do such overhauls in beta (or they try to avoid it, anyway,) where everyone is exposed to it. Especially one of this magnitude. I'm fairly certain everyone understands what, 'When it's done.' means when they say it, they may want more features, these people exist in all game communities, but they know it means 'when blizzard is satisfied with the product.'
You put new in quotes, but in actuality Blizzard has been Merged with Activision for over 3 years now. You might not have complaints about directions they've taken, but to not acknowledge that they are under different leadership is just wrong. A lot of their structure stayed intact, because what they had works. That doesn't mean they still don't receive orders from The Activision-Blizzard umbrella. They are just expected to handle things on their own.
That's because they aren't really under different leadership. The same company heads that have been there for 15 years are pretty much still there except for a few people here and there (the folks that left to form Arena.net, and Roper) And those people left before the Vivendi/Acitivison merger in the first place.
I too remember when they promised guild hall support in Diablo2, and a 1998 release date both didn't happen among other things that they also cut from that title.
That was also around the time I stopped really caring about Blizzard as they even back then had a habit of announcing all these great features early, entering development hell and feature creep galore and then tacking on 5 years a dev cycle to sort it all out.
I know people say their games are polished, personally, aside from Diablo 1, I've never seen any of their titles any different or any better than any other titles in their respected genres.
With the Warcrafts and Starcrafts, I always preferred Command and Conquer, Post Diablo, I went for deeper RPG's like the ones Bioware used to make. WoW? I'd done my share of EQ and other similar MMO's, hated the WC universe to begin with and never did understand what anyone ever saw in WoW that was really any different than similar fantasy mmo's.
Maybe I'm jaded, but for me, and I know I'm in the minority on this, I've never considered Blizzard that great of a dev house.