After one of the last GDCs slides by a few WoW designers became available. They made it clear that you should not do what the fans demand because they don´t really know what exactly they like and why. Listen to them, analyze what they are saying, filter out what they really mean. All fine. But then take a step back and do what you ( = the desgner) think is best for the game. Usually the majority of the players likes the changes, but that´s not the primary objective.
The "image" that Blizzard is closer to the fans than other companies is successfully created by marketing & PR. Not only their developers are the best in the business.
Ah. So when they had a question sent out asking fans "Do you think the look of SC2 is too cartooney" (I think Zergs in particular), got a resounding yes, and then went and overhauled the graphical design of SC2, that was...PR spiel.
That first paragraph is the typical claptrap you get to defend companies that ignore fans - like Bethesda. It's got things completely backwards. Yes, the first priority is that you have a strong design vision and philosophy that the game's leads all agree on. And once you have that, you talk to your fans.
And this is where it goes wrong, and all that nonsense about inconsistent visions comes in. If the fans simply disagree with your basic vision, ignore them, they are of no concern to you. But if they have a suggestion or idea that fits within your vision, or if many of them show a reaction you did not expect, think about it and adapt where possible or necessary.
It doesn't matter that fans squabble over details, it matters from what basic perspective they squabble over. Here's what Ryan M Milner
said about Fallout fans, which applies well here:
They fit in snug with Lévy’s propositions about knowledge communities and were all over the Fallout 3 forum. Most of the intense debates over the quality of Fallout 3 centered on the offer of information (such as a link to a screenshot or a quote from a producer) and the interpretation of that information. And in cases where there was no credible information to be proposed, speculation was a sufficient replacement. Even in the most heated moments of confrontation, information was a cardinal value. With very few exceptions, all the debates on the Fallout 3 forum were about knowledge.
An understanding of the Fallout universe was a paramount value on the forum. An understanding of digital-game culture in general wasn’t too far behind. And no matter how one felt about Fallout 3, being able to articulately and rationally discuss nuanced points was the only way to seriously enter into the conversation.
Knowledge community is a vastly important asset, especially if you work primarily with franchises. The common ground between knowledge community and design philosophy is that they overlap, and where they overlap is where - at least according to Blizzard's philosophy - you should be. It's not about squabbling over details, it's about finding the common ground in this widely outlined area. That is pure gold when you have that, and a competent marketing manager knows this as well as anyone.
Beyond that - is a lot of this just PR? Yes. But PR has always been a part of effective community nurturing - whether it be 2K Boston or CD Projekt Red. I know enough people inside Blizzard to say with some confidence that it does not work like certain other insulated companies, be it Nintendo or EA or Bethesda, and despite its size is shockingly close to the "family-model" of developing houses that we know from BIS and Troika and - to a lesser degree - early-time BioWare and Obsidian.
(of course I could be way off and it's all pop and bang show. I doubt you could sustain such community relations without actually taking your community into account in your design - hell, take the simple fact that SC II is pretty clearly designed primarily for the SC community, which surprisingly is not at all true for a lot of other sequels)