Forums

Topic: PC Gaming

Posts 941 to 960 of 990

Octane

@Dezzy The like/dislike bar was certainly reset more than once, and they're still deleting comments.

Octane

NEStalgia

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.

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

redd214

Dezzy wrote:

@

redd214 wrote:

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

Edited on by redd214

redd214

Octane

If it doesn't become a Battlefront 2.0 controversy, I'm afraid your voice won't be heard these days...

Octane

redd214

@Octane which is a shame on both ends unfortunately

redd214

Dezzy

@redd214

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.

Converted from Sony to Nintendo during 7th gen and never looked back.

Freelance

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.

Freelance

Dezzy

@Freelance

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.

Converted from Sony to Nintendo during 7th gen and never looked back.

NEStalgia

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.....

NEStalgia

shaneoh

Dezzy wrote:

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.

The Greatest love story ever, Rosie Love (part 33 done)
The collective noun for a group of lunatics is a forum. A forum of lunatics.
I'm belligerent, you were warned.

NEStalgia

@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....

NEStalgia

DarthNocturnal

So... are the first two Warcraft games just that forgettable? I find it interesting that they did 3 first, and not the original (and thus, they'll probably never do the second one).

I know one of Blizzard's co-founders thinks they're not much fun nowadays.

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

Dezzy

@shaneoh

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.

@DarthNocturnal

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.

Untitled

Edited on by Dezzy

Converted from Sony to Nintendo during 7th gen and never looked back.

NEStalgia

@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.

NEStalgia

DarthNocturnal

@NEStalgia

Hmmm, interesting. Although, I notice 1 and 2 were on DOS... surely they could do what they did with Blackthorne, Lost Vikings and Rock N Roll Racing and release them for free? If they really don't think they're worth re-selling, give them away.

With the exception of the some of their Silicon & Synapse/ early Blizzard era works, the only Blizzard franchise I'm “in the know“ about is StarCraft (maybe a little Overwatch, although I don't own it). I wanted to look into Warcraft, but buying and/ or subbing into an MMO isn't the best first leap. So when I see the only one they sell is the 3rd, I'm left wondering if I'm missing out on something.

Definitely interested in WC3 Reforged though. It's not like StarCraft had anything major at BlizzCon.

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

NEStalgia

@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.

NEStalgia

DarthNocturnal

Semi-related; I just learned that while Runic Games is dead, one of it's founders started a new development team, and got the rights to Torchlight. And there's a third game being made.

I played a fair bit of Torchlight 2 (I do own 1 as well). Good to see it's not dead.

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

Dezzy

@DarthNocturnal

I seem to remember Torchlight 2 doing quite well. Why did the dev go under?

Converted from Sony to Nintendo during 7th gen and never looked back.

DarthNocturnal

@Dezzy

In short, everyone important left to return to small time development/ chase their own ideas (again), and their parent company shut it down. Much of the remaining staff made yet another small studio.

I don't think there was any drama. Just “bye, best of luck“. Or at least, that's the gist of what I'm reading.

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic