Blizzard - Serious Gaming

[fatBastard()]

Then again, you're exactly the sort of person who would enjoy SC2, aren't you?

As in someone who prefers a rock-solid quality release over innovation? Absolutely.

 

[DArtagnan]

As in someone who prefers a rock-solid quality release over innovation? Absolutely.

Someone who prefers tradition over evolution

 

[curious]

stormrise was highly innovative--it was also probablly the worst non low-budget rts ever made
my expectations for starcraft 2 weren't very high. but its given me all the highs of the original(s) and provided and entertaining story with a lot of choices (obviously only strategic and not meaningful) but choices none the less and i honestly have zero complaints about the game, which most games have at least one.

the game is flawless and that obviously pisses certain flawed indiviuals off i guess

 

[DArtagnan]

the game is flawless and that obviously pisses certain flawed indiviuals off i guess

Every human being in the world is flawed, as is every game.

One way of demonstrating a flaw, would be to consider any game perfect.

Another way, would be to assume people with different tastes are somehow flawed - because of that alone.

So, thanks for the demo!

 

[xSamhainx]

It's a game that holds on to the clunky limitations of the original, but I have a feeling that's what it's supposed to be. It's not supposed to be next-gen, It's not supposed to innovate.

That's what Starcraft is, it's not supposed to be convenient or easy. It says "go play Company of Heroes if you cant handle me". That's what's become part of the sport of Starcraft. That's part of what playing it is all about, being able to micro of every single friggen unit. No formations. Small unit ques. Limited zoom. Separates the men from the boys.

That's what Starcraft is.. like it or not.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's a game that holds on to the clunky limitations of the original, but I have a feeling that's what it's supposed to be. It's not supposed to be next-gen, It's not supposed to innovate.

That's what Starcraft is, it's not supposed to be convenient or easy. It says "go play Company of Heroes if you cant handle me". That's what's become part of the sport of Starcraft. That's part of what playing it is all about, being able to micro of every single friggen unit. No formations. Small unit ques. Limited zoom. Separates the men from the boys.

That's what Starcraft is.. like it or not.

So, the story is supposed to be incredibly cliché as well, to separate the men from the boys?

Well, to each his own - and we all see things differently.

As I said, SC2 is a fine quality game, and there's no doubt about it.

The game in itself is no more challenging than your opponent - and it's definitely a fantastically competitive game. The thing is, though, that I played it already back in 1998 - and for some reason, that was enough for me.

There's nothing less competitive about CoH, but the skills required are less about learning patterns, memorising reactions to establised tactics, and optimising the first 5-10 minutes of gameplay - than about adapting to an incredibly dynamic design.

CoH innovated in a lot of areas, like the cover mechanic, the unit AI, and things of that nature. SC2 didn't innovate anything, except perhaps in how to spend a lot of time doing nothing really interesting.

SC2 is really about the one who's played the most, and CoH is about the guy who understands war tactics in general - because it's based on logic and plausible rules. Experience helps immensely, obviously, but it's not the key. I like that a lot.

I don't really see anything "seperating men from the boys" about SC2. I see Blizzard having spent countless years and near-infinite resources putting out something they already did - with suprisingly few enhancements.

That might impress a lot of people, but it doesn't work for me.

 

[Moriendor]

I wholeheartedly agree with Sire D'Artagnan. Also, if anything, then SC2 is the boys' camp while something like CoH is in the men's corner.
And -yes- it's an incredible shame and a gigantic waste of potential that the one developer in this world who actually does have the cash to fool around with and to try something a little more daring or experimental is not able to come up with more than a rehash of a game they already did 12(!) years ago.
Seriously. They have invented a whole new level of lameness right there that is only going to be topped by Diablo 3 which is going to be a rehash of a 15(!) or 16(!) year old game once it is released next year or the year after that. Grats, Blizzard... or maybe not.

Honestly, it really pisses me off when a developer who does have the actual resources to pull off something awesome doesn't use their potential to the fullest. It's kinda like the stock market where it is more painful if you punch out of a soaring stock too early thus missing out on a lot of cash than if you just bet on the wrong horse. In the latter case you just cut your losses and move on but the dreams about "what could have been" are just plain painful.

 

[fatBastard()]

I wholeheartedly agree with Sire D'Artagnan. Also, if anything, then SC2 is the boys' camp while something like CoH is in the men's corner.
And -yes- it's an incredible shame and a gigantic waste of potential that the one developer in this world who actually does have the cash to fool around with and to try something a little more daring or experimental is not able to come up with more than a rehash of a game they already did 12(!) years ago.
Seriously. They have invented a whole new level of lameness right there that is only going to be topped by Diablo 3 which is going to be a rehash of a 15(!) or 16(!) year old game once it is released next year or the year after that. Grats, Blizzard… or maybe not.

Honestly, it really pisses me off when a developer who does have the actual resources to pull off something awesome doesn't use their potential to the fullest. It's kinda like the stock market where it is more painful if you punch out of a soaring stock too early thus missing out on a lot of cash than if you just bet on the wrong horse. In the latter case you just cut your losses and move on but the dreams about "what could have been" are just plain painful.

But why fix it if it ain't broke?

The humongous continuous success of both Diablo and StarCraft is a clear indication that Blizzard hit the nail on the head, so why would they want to change such a winning recipe?

As far as I'm concerned innovation just for the sake of innovation is pointless and most often ends in failure. But to each his own.

 

[coyote]

Serious gaming sounds like dry swimming. Anyway, I understand that gaming is a serious business for Blizzard, and WoW in particular can seriously impair health and social life of gamers, so it's not all wrong ;-)

 

[DArtagnan]

But why fix it if it ain't broke?

The humongous continuous success of both Diablo and StarCraft is a clear indication that Blizzard hit the nail on the head, so why would they want to change such a winning recipe?

As far as I'm concerned innovation just for the sake of innovation is pointless and most often ends in failure. But to each his own.

Innovation for the sake of a better game?

Why do you think CoH is so respected? Because it innovated just for innovation, or because it took the genre forward?

But then, that wouldn't generate the most money necessarily - so from your point of view, I get it

 

[GothicGothicness]

Well, Didn't it ever happen to you DArtagnan that after you finished a game... the only thing you wished was that there was more of the same?

By the time you are through with most game, you find yourself just hoping it would end..... but sometimes there is such a great game you just feel sad it ended, and sit their just wishing for more?

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, Didn't it ever happen to you DArtagnan that after you finished a game… the only thing you wished was that there was more of the same?

By the time you are through with most game, you find yourself just hoping it would end….. but sometimes there is such a great game you just feel sad it ended, and sit their just wishing for more?

Very rarely

When it does happen, I generally don't want more of exactly the same - though my mind might tell me so.

Case in point: Bioshock 2.

I enjoyed Bioshock, even if it was very inferior as a spiritual System Shock successor.

I was really looking forward to Bioshock 2, because I was expecting the same kind of game - and I got that.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the experience couldn't be re-created, because Bioshock had an unknown and supremely interesting premise - and I found that such a thing can't be re-created exactly.

So, I got bored quickly.

I'm the sort of person who "sucks dry" the good things I encounter, and I really want evolution whenever I can get it. I pretty much despise repetition in all its forms.

The thing about Starcraft 2, though, isn't so much that they basically re-did the first one - because I was expecting that.

It's that they spent at least 7 YEARS and 100 million dollars on it. I find that completely unfathomable.

Then again, I just have to remember that wanting to create something new, or take the genres forward - is not really a goal anymore. The goal is money.

It's so far away from who I am, that I have to experience this kind of thing over and over again, before I really "get it".

Actually, I might never get it.

 

[fatBastard()]

Innovation for the sake of a better game?

Why do you think CoH is so respected? Because it innovated just for innovation, or because it took the genre forward?

But then, that wouldn't generate the most money necessarily - so from your point of view, I get it

But that implies that there IS something that's not good enough/broken since you would add innovation in order to make the game better. Funny how when Bioware apparently attempts that very same thing (Dragon Age 2) they're being scolded for not sticking to the core Dragon Age: Origins values and for dumbing down the game but when Blizzard sticks to the core elements of what made StarCraft the game it was, they're scolded for not being innovative.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The humongous continuous success of both Diablo and StarCraft is a clear indication that Blizzard hit the nail on the head,

Depends on the target group. Their target group is obviouisly the mass market, and especially the conservative fans who don't want a thing to be changed too much.


Besides, I think here is kind of a mis-conception of the term "serious gaming" involved … I'd like to point out to the English-language Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game , and to point out that here in Germany "serious gaming" is a term used for "educational gaming", things like "Monkey Labs" by Larian Studios, for example.

Which means that I just don't get the link between Blizzard and educational games.
I never knew they were making them.

 

[DArtagnan]

But that implies that there IS something that's not good enough/broken since you would add innovation in order to make the game better. Funny how when Bioware apparently attempts that very same thing (Dragon Age 2) they're being scolded for not sticking to the core Dragon Age: Origins values and for dumbing down the game but when Blizzard sticks to the core elements of what made StarCraft the game it was, they're scolded for not being innovative.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Oh, they're not damned - they're getting rich!

But Dragon Age 2 isn't being criticised for doing something different, it's being criticised for doing something seemingly worse

Nothing wrong with sticking to core values. You can do that AND innovate.

That's basically what I'm advocating for a real System Shock evolution.

Then again, my own personal vision of the next System Shock is a gigantic step forward, that I doubt any AAA developer would dare to do.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Then again, my own personal vision of the next System Shock is a gigantic step forward, that I doubt any AAA developer would dare to do.

Well, you can't deny they tried something new and different with Bioshock...... however you complain it is not enough like system shock? isn't this a bit of countering your own argument?

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, you can't deny they tried something new and different with Bioshock…… however you complain it is not enough like system shock? isn't this a bit of countering your own argument?

No, they took it backwards instead of forward. It's supporting my argument

Then again, such things are subjective. It's more of a lament than a complaint.

Can't fault them for doing what they think was needed for money, as that's their objective

 

[GothicGothicness]

So you mean if they had made it like system shock 2, but with bioshock quality graphics and lots of little improvements and polishing that would have been a bad thing?

 

[LuckyCarbon]

I haven't tried SC2, no interest. I never really cared for Starcraft 1. It was so watered down, the engine was so limiting (ramps? really?) and the units were so rock-paper-scissors it was painfully boring. The dated graphics didn't help. In my mind, Starcraft was like checkers, simple concepts and bright colors ( aka every game Blizzard has ever made ). Total Annihilation was chess and a much better game.

Whoever brought up CoH, that's a much better game and reinforcements from outside of your operational area is very realistic.

 

[DArtagnan]

So you mean if they had made it like system shock 2, but with bioshock quality graphics and lots of little improvements and polishing that would have been a bad thing?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, or if you're getting anything I've said.

Bioshock took it backwards, and that's a bad thing if you're like me.

If they'd made it more like System Shock 2, WITH improvements - that would have been better.

System Shock 2 was already a few steps back AND a few steps forward.

The original System Shock is the best, in my opinion, and they should have taken THAT concept forward - to please me, and those who think in the same way.

Bioshock was obviously a much prettier game, and I think the premise in itself was superior to both the previous Shock games. Sadly, the gameplay was simplistic, the levels cramped, themepark-ish, and linear - the actual storyline pretentious and didn't carry through at all. Also, it was dumbed way down in terms of "helping" hands and the placement of audio logs.

If you want to take the Shock legacy forward, you need to work on the stronger elements. Like the strong non-linear design, the plausible and consistent storyline, the pure gameplay mechancs (SS2 was better here with CRPG elements), the survival horror aspect, the cyberspace aspect, the scrounging aspect, and you want to utilise current technology to make it look great.

My own personal vision is of a huge non-linear station that you VERY slowly take control over - area by area, complete with a working transit system, research labs that you can do actual research in, roaming AI, a fully featured operating system to hack in a plausible fashion where you have to actually think to figure out passwords and the like, a huge outdoor area you can roam around in with vehicles and where you'll ultimately encounter the alien base, an immersive non-intrusive interface (like they messed up in Tresspasser), a story that unfolds in a non-linear fashion when you access video logs at various locations and not conveniently placed ones to make a typical Hollywood movie, resource economy without pathetic 9/9 health/eve pack limitations, a security system that makes sense that you can ultimately control, a large number of NPCs with complete and plausible backgrounds that you have to discover for yourself, at your own pace - with strong interrelations, and on and on. On top of that, a strong plot with a twist - that I'm kinda proud of.

Think of it as a freeroaming non-linear survival horror game, with very strong CRPG and strategy game elements. A game that would take 100-200 hours to complete, if you want access to all the advantages of the station to combat the alien menace, and if you want the "complete" picture of what the hell happened at that station.

It works in my head, anyway