The End of Blizzard?

[wyvrn]

WCIII was good but disappointing. The gameplay was actually better than most any other rts I have played. It handily beats anything cept Rise of Nations that I have played lately. The disappointing aspect to me was online play and smurfs. It's hard to get a balanced game because there is no way to tell what level players you are getting. Therefore, games are usually lopsided easy or hard.

Starcraft redefined rts games. Actually, BroodWar made Starcraft a megahit because you could play any of the three races and legitimately win on any given game. No other game in my memory has that type of balance, which is why so many still play it. I only hope SC2 is as good gameplay wise, but even if it's remotely close to the first it will still be a great game.

I was never a huge fan of the click 'n' slash Diablo games, but they were very popular with my friends and you could tell they were very well done. Blizzard is a legend in the gaming industry, hopefully their key personnel will follow it up with a good second gaming company.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

Ah, you didn't play it online.

 

[wyvrn]

You could overcome this in SC by just overbuilding the computer. I had a friend that could take 7 BW computers by himself on a normal map. WC3 is much harder to do that because the game places more importance on each unit. That is as it should be. But the all-knowing computer AI is a copout by the designers who should have spent more time developing a real balanced and adaptable AI. I am guessing because of release pressures they skimped on that part.

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

Ah, you didn't play it online.

No, I don't want to play it online. I want to play it co-op vs. the computer with my friends on our LAN.

 

[Ns1]

here's to you guys re: war3



NewSc2: then came back, and fell asleep playing warcraft on the computer

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

Ah, you didn't play it online.

No, I don't want to play it online. I want to play it co-op vs. the computer with my friends on our LAN.

Playing Starcraft co-op vs the computers on bnet with my friends was very fun! None of us really wanted to play against humans.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

Ah, you didn't play it online.

No, I don't want to play it online. I want to play it co-op vs. the computer with my friends on our LAN.

It was a long time ago since Blizzard released a patch that added different AI skill levels.
You have the usual easy/normal/hard now.

And besides, I'd rather have an overpowered somewhat smart AI than the pathetically stupid AI's of every other RTS I've ever played.

 

[Czar]

.

Originally posted by: JetsFanatic
I guess no diablo III?

maybe, maybe not
from diablii.net

Gamespot has posted a news item detailing a phone conversation with Bill Roper, post-Blizzard. Bill says the decision to leave Blizzard came up very suddenly, and hints that issues with controlling management were one of the main reasons for their departure. He also says that the group that left hasn't even met yet to figure out what they're going to do, but that they have a lot of ideas for games, so it sounds like they are going totally from scratch. And in news we are glad to hear, he says he wishes Blizzard well since he wants to play more Diablo; a hint of Diablo 3 being developed? (Not that that would be a surprise to anyone.)

 

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Everyone who said WC3 is a joke/sucks/is lame: explain why.

IMO, it plays identical to Starcraft and still has no co-op versus the computer playability. The AI is way over-powering and seems like the AI in Starcraft that cheats by knowing the location of all resources and players at the beginning of the game.

amish

Ah, you didn't play it online.

No, I don't want to play it online. I want to play it co-op vs. the computer with my friends on our LAN.

It was a long time ago since Blizzard released a patch that added different AI skill levels.
You have the usual easy/normal/hard now.

And besides, I'd rather have an overpowered somewhat smart AI than the pathetically stupid AI's of every other RTS I've ever played.

no kidding. I can beat easy and normal...but insane is well...insane! They collect 2x as much gold 2x as fast and their untis come at well...an INSANE rate. I LOVE IT! Finally, something that is a challenge. Amish just wants to say he won. piss on that.

 

[CrazyDe1]

The fact is that Blizzard, and game companies that make RTS's don't really make them primarily for a single player campaign. The game is made for online play. Playing a single player game won't even begin to teach you the dynamics of playing against another human. The game is made primarily for story and for human vs human interaction. Single player is there for AI abuse and for entertainment and story, not really for a challenge. One of the main guys at blizzard in charge of balance had this to say:

"Basically, in our opinion, single player is not adequate or even useful preparation for multiplayer except in that it teaches you what the units do. Other than that, it really doesn't teach you very many strategies that are applicable to multiplayer, and probably teaches you more bad habits than good ones."

It's obvious that balance and multiplayer replayability and challenge take precedence over playing the computer and really good AI. Cause face it, if you want good AI, you might as well play a human.

That being said, the original WC3 was very hard to get used to for a lot of people because of the fact that hard counters weren't in place and creeping and also the importance of heroes. When you were used to rushing and you killed a farm or something and someone held off everything with a hero and then came in and won easily w/ a hero 2 levels higher it was difficult to figure out that creeping was key. It's difficult for people who are used to rushing or teching to figure out that creeping gives a huge advantage in both getting gold and obtaining experience. I think creeping is perfectly balanced in TFT though.

As for the smurfs issue, RPardo, lead designer said himself that the majority of people want a system wehre they can always fight someone just below them so that it's a good game and they win. No one really wants a truly balanced match making system. Games usually become really fun when you start winning the majority of them. This is the same with WC3. It took awhile to get used to and a few of us got pissed and almost quit because we could only win by tower rushing, but now we're used to it and it's fun as hell.

 

[prontospyder]

Looks like Blizzard is working on 2 unannounced projects - I hope one of them is Starcraft 2!

Roper said that he and his colleagues made sure that Blizzard and Blizzard North would not be adversely affected by their departures. Roper told us that Blizzard North currently has two unannounced projects in development but that he expects that the studio responsible for the hugely successful Diablo game franchise will continue to make great games. ?We don?t want to see Blizzard North or anything they have worked on disappear and we don?t believe they are going to,? he said.

Link

 

[0roo0roo]

well playing frozen throne now, its not bad, like broodwar to sc, u can't go back!