@Dezzy I have no issue with expressing discontent. But the manner with which I have seen online about this game is what makees me describe it that way. Big difference e between saying "Hey Blizzard, longtime fan, I don't play mobile games so won't be getting this but looking forward to mainline diablo in the future" and "Blizzard you %+? (! /?) * idiots you guys are so dumb, no one wants this you monkeys, I hope you go bankrupt etc etc..."
Getting legitimately angry at a company for making a game you don't like is over the top imo. Not going to say I'm 100% innocent of doing it but to get so emotional about something as simple as games that you would threaten people as I've seen, only way to describe that is immature imo.
If it's not for you than it's not for you, I assume they're going to break the bank with Immortal regardless. I'm sure I will give it a go and my kids will probably on their tablets as well.
You don't hype up something big, gather all the Diablo fans and announce a mobile game, and pretend like it's the future of the franchise, because 'the mobile platform is so much better for online play and bringing people together'.
''Hey guys, we're going to announce a mobile version of Diablo at Blizzcon, temper your expectations.'' ''Don't worry, we're also working on a PC version.'' ''Don't get excited for a new PC Diablo game at Blizzcon.''
But no, they went with ''DO YOU GUYS NOT HAVE PHONES???''
I don't know how people articulated their initial dislikes actually because they apparently deleted the original trailer and uploaded a new one to try and get rid of the negative reaction.
By the time I saw it, the comment section was just full of memes and mocking them for deleting comments.
Getting legitimately angry at a company for making a game you don't like is over the top imo.
It's not getting angry for just making a game you don't like. It's get angry when a developer uses a long-running series that you've supported (and therefore funded) for decades and tries to use its name recognition (that you helped create) to appeal to a completely different audience or taste.
That's what annoys people. Developers should generally avoid doing this. It's trivially easy to start a new IP if you want to make cellphone games. If they'd just called this something other than Diablo, no-one would've cared about it at all.
This Blizz conference will sit in the hall of infamy next to Todd Howard trying to diffuse the suddenly quiet, sullen E3 arena after announcing "Fallout is now an online PvP shared world game with no NPCs", EA's C&C...now on mobile announcement, and The Don Mattrick Show.
Getting legitimately angry at a company for making a game you don't like is over the top imo.
It's not getting angry for just making a game you don't like. It's get angry when a developer uses a long-running series that you've supported (and therefore funded) for decades and tries to use its name recognition (that you helped create) to appeal to a completely different audience or taste.
That's what annoys people. Developers should generally avoid doing this. It's trivially easy to start a new IP if you want to make cellphone games. If they'd just called this something other than Diablo, no-one would've cared about it at all.
So basically getting mad because theyre doing something you don't like. It's their ip and their choice of what to do with it. If you don't like the product just don't buy it or voice your concerns reasonably but people flying off the handle like Blizzard actually did something to them is just a lack of emotional control. I've been playing games for almost 30 years and there have been plenty of times a company has taken a series I loved in a different direction but that's life, not everything is always going to go exactly as you want. People take this stuff waaaay too seriously. Perhaps I'm not a "hardcore" enough gamer to care as much but in my opinion it's just a waste of emotional energy to get angry. Just my 2 cents
I really don't think whether people are polite or rude in a youtube comments section really matters that much. Is anyone seriously gonna read all of those?
Of course not. They'll look at the downvote ratio and they'll maybe try and get a general sense of why people downvoted it and then they'll ignore the rest.
You know, I -was- going to say something, but everything @redd214 matches my own. Thanks for doing all the work so I don't have to XD Getting all worked up over something as trivial as gaming (ie luxury) never made any sense to me.
Getting all worked up about it is what developers want their audience to do. They just want it to be in favour of the game rather than against it.
You really can't have one of those without the possibility of the opposite as well. That's not possible. It's the inevitable cost of creating a passionate following.
Ultimately these days, business is driven by "optics", e.g. social image. They'll push to any limit and see how much the audience can take without tarnishing their brand or image in a significant enough way to be damaging in public impression, and particularly in search results.
Yeah, internet people are obnoxious about this stuff. But unfortunately the inverse is also true. If the public "politely" handles any direction a company action, they'll accept it as "PR Mission Accomplished!" and know the public is malleable. If the explosion leaves them exposed and their public image is tainted, they have to react. Unfortunately this is the 21'st century and being "polite and civil" is synonymous with "rolling over and taking it." Be it bad business practices, or less importantly, damaging the future of a product you value.
That's always trouble for me....I'm not good at the "be uncivil and disruptive thing" which means I end up a doormat easily enough.
Imagine if the XBone debacle had involved "calm voicing of concerns". We'd still be buying physical unlock keys for the MS Store and confirming it with photo verification for the camera. But a dramatic explosion of obnoxious anger made them reverse course in 24 hours or less because they couldn't ignore it, they had to make the problem vanish at any cost.
Obnoxious or not, Blizzard will have to react to this. Bethesda will have to react to their impending DOOM as well....early warning signs of 76 are not looking so good.....
It's not getting angry for just making a game you don't like. It's get angry when a developer uses a long-running series that you've supported (and therefore funded) for decades and tries to use its name recognition (that you helped create) to appeal to a completely different audience or taste.
How dare they do something that literally no one else has done
Like children refusing to eat food they've never tried.
@shaneoh Nintendo is smart enough to be well aware that E3 and Directs are not the place to announce mobile games, and they've said so very clearly. Microsoft used Gears Pop as a trolling mechanism to rile fans in E3 attendance, knowing full well, the bile mobile games generate among the core audience, before dumping a Gears PC RTS and Gears 5 immediately after, as a bit of tongue in cheek, poke the bear humor. Bethesda knows to dispose of their mobile games in an around major release games, or get them over with at the start of their show. And EA, of course, holds the bag for the Price is Right losing horn with their tone-deaf C&C reveal.
But Blizzard-Activision apparently is aware of none of this, builds a convention, inviting the PC/console faithful, for a brand not terribly mainstream outside the faithful, hypes reveals for days, and concludes the whole thing with a mobile game hyped as the next installment, oblivious, apparently, to the knowledge the rest of the industry (sans EA) has about the perception issue of the mobile audience and the core audience not matching. And when called predictably out by fans, they go full Mattrick with "don't you have phones?" as though #dealwithit isn't a 1 way ticket to Zynga.
I mean, seriously, if even Reggie can figure this out, it can't be that hard....
Like NEStalgia says, these are bad examples because they were never pitched as being equivalent to their console versions or being replacements for them. It's also relevant that we'd have 5 years with quite a lot of 2D Mario and Fire Emblem games when these cellphone games came out, so there wasn't that same hunger with the fans.
If you want to use Nintendo as an example, a better instance is Metroid Federation Force. That got a very similar response for very similar reasons. Because it was a departure from the style that people liked AND it was being presented at a time when people were expecting a proper Metroid. Hence the bad response it got. That's much more equivalent.
All of these kind of incidents could be really easily avoided if developers just followed the simple rule: If you're going to change the fundamental nature of a franchise, just create a new IP to do it instead.
They were both great at the time. Not necessarily aged very well though. Warcraft 1 looks so old that you wouldn't really be able to remaster it very easily without it looking terrible OR completely different.
@DarthNocturnal Warcraft 1 is remarkably ancient, and very very primitive. It's a curio, but I'm not sure it really has much value today.
Warcraft II was probably the best of the series. It hasn't aged well but a total visual remake would work well.
I don't know the internal politics at Blizzard but I get the sense there was a major falling out between the creative halves around when WoW became a gold mine. The fact that everything they produce seems to be 10 years of development heck, cancellations, re-purposing, missteps. I know the collapse of Blizzard North is what sent Diablo into disarray (and a massive art style change) but part of that was a Blizzard South inflicted wound, forcing them to do a Diablo MMO before pulling the rug out when they figured out that was a disaster. Similarly the feel, art style, and everything of Warcraft changed with WC3 (and became the template for WoW, and later D3) but it was controversial at the time. I'm not sure if Rob Pardo leaving was related or not, but something about classic Blizzard changed when WC3 came out. I was never quite comfortable with the feel of WC3, even if I have fond memories of it.
@DarthNocturnal i think wc2 want great, and in many ways better than 3 on a purely strategic level, but i also think StarCraft really perfected the wc2 formula kind of rendering it redundant, and this wc3 is a fish out of water, where wc2 was more "pure" and wc3 was different for the sake of being different, but clearly it didn't establish itself considering it became an mmo and wc4 is a unicorn. if course all of blizzards classic ips seem perpetually uncertain these days.
You're probably not missing much as is. It was great in it's day, but that was the r
Early 90s. Everything including StarCraft replaced it, and there was minimal story to speak of. Still for nostalgia it's worth wishing for.
Wc1 is just so primitive though. Nobody would play that. It was the second rts of relevance, ever.
Forums
Topic: PC Gaming
Posts 841 to 860 of 2,134
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic