No Diablo III at Blizzcon 07

[TheBigL]

Website Diablo3 (http://diablo3.com/), who were at the Blizzcon 07, is reporting that there will be no new announcements from Blizzard. Thus no Diablo 3.

A rep from Blizzard just sent me notice that there would be no more announcements at BlizzCon tomorrow (Saturday), so for those of you (ie: all of you) who were hoping that this would be the day that Diablo 3 was finally confirmed, I'm sorry to inform you that you'll have to continue to wait. We all know that it's eventually coming, but the waiting for the official confirmation of the third game along with some idea of what it will be like is a really hard thing to wait for. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I figured it would be best to tell you about this now rather than have you guys waiting around all day Saturday hoping that we'd hear more about Diablo 3. Thanks for sticking with us though... Blizzard is listening to us and sooner or later (ok, later) Diablo 3 will become a reality.

Dammit. I was soooooooooooo hoping for this...
and with all the fuss the "Team 3" (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14691) did...
I hate Blizzard.

[jpublic]

Am I like the only person on this planet who didn't like D2 that much?

[TheBigL]

I didnt liked D2 that much also. I liked the first 1 much more. But you cant ignore the fact that the game was sucking you in for hours.

[Grifter]

Am I like the only person on this planet who didn't like D2 that much?

I am right there with you, I did really like Diablo 1 though and am looking forward to part 3.

[HumpYourWay]

Damn... I am a big time gamer but Diablo is like THE anti-game for me... :( bleh

[Tricky Thumb]

Diablo 2 was alright, but with the advent of the MMO it just seems largely unnecessary. Whatever Diablo 3 eventually turns out to be, I'm wondering just how much of a "Diablo" game it really turns out to be.

[TheDancinMan]

It's gonna happen. It has to happen at some point, but stupid Blizzard, liking to make us wait for everything all the damn time.

All this Diablo talk might make me get D2 for my Mac and play it again.

[bapenguin]

D3 is coming. It's being worked on. It's just not announced.

I've heard from someone very reputable it's been worked on for over 2-3 years now.

[Winterwolves]

The real diablo 3 is called Hellgate:London anyway...blizzard making diablo 3 is like EA taking over the 007 series.

[Tricky Thumb]

If Starcraft 2 is any indication we'll get D3 by around 2010 unless Blizzard goes the same route they went with Warcraft and make a Starcraft MMO after SC2 but I somehow doubt that will happen.

[Rune_74]

I thin they have to move D3 away from what was d2 and add a bit more role playing elements to it, not just making it feel like an empty on line world.

[Sloth]

The real diablo 3 is called Hellgate:London anyway...blizzard making diablo 3 is like EA taking over the 007 series.


did you just compare Blizzard to EA?:eek:

[Shjinta]

Of course theres going to be no announcement of Diablo 3 at Blizzcon.. the game that will steal WoWs player base? Hahaha nope.

[TrackZero]

Am I like the only person on this planet who didn't like D2 that much?

Nope. I loved the first one, hated the second.

[51|RandoM]

It is a shame Blizzard isn't making enough money on WoW to fund a Diablo team.

:)

I'm in the loved the first, bored by the second camp. The first one just seemed to ooze atmosphere that the second one lacked. I'd guess that people who really liked the second one liked it for its enhanced multiplayer options---stuff I didn't care about in a diablo game back in the d2 days. Played through the campaign in a weekend, never touched it again.

[Tricky Thumb]

I'd guess that people who really liked the second one liked it for its enhanced multiplayer options---stuff I didn't care about in a diablo game back in the d2 days. Played through the campaign in a weekend, never touched it again.

See that's what is interesting, if this is essentially the case then all/most of those people are probably WoW players who are going to play Blizzard's next MMO regardless of whether it's Diablo, Starcraft or Lost Vikings.

[Arphahat]

I still think that Guild Wars is the successor to Diablo II. Everyone plays in their own instanced zones, but the "game list" has been replaced by the shared towns. You have attributes you can assign and skills that are affected by the attributes. And, you go around killing stuff.

[bapenguin]

It is a shame Blizzard isn't making enough money on WoW to fund a Diablo team.

:)

I'm in the loved the first, bored by the second camp. The first one just seemed to ooze atmosphere that the second one lacked. I'd guess that people who really liked the second one liked it for its enhanced multiplayer options---stuff I didn't care about in a diablo game back in the d2 days. Played through the campaign in a weekend, never touched it again.

If the rumors of the 3rd one's story prove true, a battle between Heaven and Hell should make for an interesting Diablo 3 with tons of atmosphere.

[Arphahat]

If the rumors of the 3rd one's story prove true, a battle between Heaven and Hell should make for an interesting Diablo 3 with tons of atmosphere.

For the record, I don't trust Tyreal... I think he is in league with Diablo.

[DubiousQuality]

D3 is coming. It's being worked on. It's just not announced.

I've heard from someone very reputable it's been worked on for over 2-3 years now.


Oh good, so by the time it comes out it should look as outdated as SC2 does!

[Salamande]

I can wait.

Bring on Hellgate: London and Sacred 2.

[Tricky Thumb]

I can wait.

Bring on Hellgate: London and Sacred 2.

Don't forget Guild Wars 2!

[Telefrog]

I don't understand the need people have for D3. I tend to think that WoW is D3 already. Random loot drops, skill trees, sockets, gems, etc. It's all pretty much right there.

[51|RandoM]

I don't understand the need people have for D3. I tend to think that WoW is D3 already. Random loot drops, skill trees, sockets, gems, etc. It's all pretty much right there.

Uh, might have something to do with that monthly fee...

[easi]

Siege tank looks like shit.

Oh wait, wrong game.

[aj1pso]

Blizzard HAS to be working on diablo as we speak. Think about it, WoW can only go so far. All the people they converted to their game are waking up to the MMO scene. There's a lot of competition out there and even more on the way. How do you fight this? Bring out another big online game. Diablo could very well be it.

Some people say that they wont because it would "steal WoW's player base". Thats really ridiculous to me. Stealing from who? From themselves? You do realize that the profits stay in the same house, right? But with 2 large-scale MMO's under their reign they can cover a much larger audience. You fight competition by becoming the competition. And WoW is getting more and more dated. An overlapping transition with a diablo MMO just makes good business sense.

Of course, they could prove us all wrong and give up all that sweet cash to stay true to the game. Make something original and not yet-another-MMORPG. God knows they can afford it.

[Talon-]

I spent at least 10 times more time on D2 than any other game I played just doing runs or trying different character types. I had somewhere between 8 and 10 Level 80+'s, which isn't that much compared to other people I know, plus a bunch of 60s and 70s. Most fun I had gaming. God I had so many items...

I miss D2. Where's my disk? :D

[Fonz]

From what I understood from PCGamer was that blizzard plans not to announce any new Games within 12 months of each other. It's just something they do.

[Oddmaker]

It prolly wont be announced till next year now as I thought Blizzcon was the best place to announce it.

[Rommel]

I never quite "Got" Diablo II. Now that I have played WoW I think I understand the play mechanics far more though. Its semi-MMO online play would probably be dated by today's standards though.

[Krispy]

I never quite "Got" Diablo II. Now that I have played WoW I think I understand the play mechanics far more though. Its semi-MMO online play would probably be dated by today's standards though.

*cough* Guild Wars *cough*

[Voodoo]

I've been under the impression for a while that in Diablo 3 you could choose either the good or evil side of the war... Wonder if this is still the plan.

[tombofsoldier]

Oh good, so by the time it comes out it should look as outdated as SC2 does!

You are a loser, an absolute loser of the worst kind. Oh noes, teh starcraft doesn't look like Crysis!

[Furious Wang]

Guild Wars is the new diablo. If you haven't played it then you're really missing out.

Damn I can't wait for the next expansion.

[jpublic]

Guild Wars is the new diablo. If you haven't played it then you're really missing out.

Damn I can't wait for the next expansion.

Good point. Especially with Nightfall, you can actually do the entire game solo.

[BrokenSymmetry]

I agree with many others here that Guild Wars already is the spiritual successor of Diablo. Guild Wars has the big advantage that your characters are much more flexible in their build setup, and to me that's a big step forward.

Also, ArenaNet (the developers of Guild Wars) has several of the ex-Blizzard employees that stood at the basis of battle.net, so if any company knows how how to make free online play feasible it's ArenaNet.

[LongStepMantis]

For the record, I don't trust Tyreal... I think he is in league with Diablo.

I'm with you. Something about Tyrael really bugged me in D2.
Especially since you see him about to get owned by Bhaal in the Chapter 2 End cutscene...but when you FIND him, he's just chilling there?
Red flags went off in my mind on that part. If he wasn't incapacitated, then how did Bhaal escape? And why didn't he follow him? For such a powerful figure, he did way too much nothing.

As far as the games, 1 was fun, 2 was fun, but not as much as 1. I liked the smaller maps and easy layout of the first one. SO many teleport, chain lightning, till you reach Lazarus runs. good times.

[StGeorge]

If Blizzard is smart, they'll just announce it at the next BlizzCon and say "It's in stores now!" I'm waiting for the first company to finally have the balls to do this. Blizzard doesn't need hype to build up awareness.

[Disgustipated]

I still think that Guild Wars is the successor to Diablo II. Everyone plays in their own instanced zones, but the "game list" has been replaced by the shared towns. You have attributes you can assign and skills that are affected by the attributes. And, you go around killing stuff.

I'd say Titan Quest is the successor to Diablo 2. It's everything Diablo 2 was, but more refined and with better graphics. And a cool setting, too.

[TheBigL]

Hate to say it to you guys, but the only successor for Diablo II is Diablo III.

[51|RandoM]

I'd say Titan Quest is the successor to Diablo 2. It's everything Diablo 2 was, but more refined and with better graphics. And a cool setting, too.

Than how can you explain the number of people playing Diablo 2 on battle.net? maybe they didn't get the memo?

Fact of the matter is that Blizzard is still supporting D2, and we're talking weekly updates, balancing, etc. That isn't happening with Titan Quest.

I've got TQ and the TQ expansion. Single player isn't as good as D2, multiplayer isn't even close. TQ is prettier, being newer, but that is it, and that wears off pretty quick.

[Crowe]

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO I could have sworn that they were going to announce it. My whole weekend is ruined. My GF is disappearing for 3 days, and I was hoping a Diablo 3 announcement would at least bring some good news. BAH!.

[Crowe]

Oh good, so by the time it comes out it should look as outdated as SC2 does!

BAHAHAHAH developers would have to love you. All they need to do is make the graphic nice and pretty and they've got you sold. Well I guess some people know what makes a good game....don't worry it will come to you eventually.

[Wyrm]

Titan Quest is almost a carbon copy with some minor improvements on the Diablo formula. I think it was fun while it lasted, but the settings were pretty bland (at times, the setting was wicked cool).

I think I like how Blizzard announces games, IE, they wait until they actually have something to show before they talk about them. That being said, I wish they would just hurry up and show me what my next few years are going to play like.

[KingGorilla]

This reminds me that I need to get another copy of D2 and roll another Necromancer. I hear that they tweaked the skeletons to actually be good.

[easi]

Guild Wars is the most boring game I've ever played.

It just doesn't compare to a well-organised Nightmare run.

[Phanto]

I'll guess we have to settle with Hellgate: London for now..

[silv]

I have to agree 100% with easi. I was massively into GW during alpha/beta, only to find a huge disappointment with the game on release. The environments were bland, story was boring, and it wasn't engrossing at all. The movement and control schemes were just terrible.

Hellgate: London might be good. But from what I've seen it looks pretty bad as well. Whats up with this billing strategy they have devised? Good armor only for those who pay? wtf?


Where oh where is Diablo3 =(

[KingGorilla]

I'll guess we have to settle with Hellgate: London for now..

I can live with that.

[Crowe]

I have to agree 100% with easi. I was massively into GW during alpha/beta, only to find a huge disappointment with the game on release. The environments were bland, story was boring, and it wasn't engrossing at all. The movement and control schemes were just terrible.

Hellgate: London might be good. But from what I've seen it looks pretty bad as well. Whats up with this billing strategy they have devised? Good armor only for those who pay? wtf?


Where oh where is Diablo3 =(

Well Flagship studios is made up of ex blizzard employees one of which includes the creator of Diablo. So i mean if anything is going to make a worthy Diabloesque game it will be these guys. And after reading a few interviews with these guys my expectations rose incredibly.

[KingGorilla]

GW was made by mostly the Battle.net team. Which reflects in the product-fantastic online infrastructure without the heart of a good game. It was technically flawless without any real heart or soul. If you are a gameplay ho, GW was great. If you craved more immersion and depth, not so much. Sort of like the Painkiller/Half-Life 2 debate.

[silv]

Have you seen any of the gameplay videos? Not very convincing imo.

edit: this is in regards to hellgate.

[KingGorilla]

They have been pretty closed mouth as to the game, those videos are on some very rough and early code. Roper knows his shit, I think that he and his team will churn out some great stuff.

[Orz]

If Blizzard is smart, they'll just announce it at the next BlizzCon and say "It's in stores now!" I'm waiting for the first company to finally have the balls to do this. Blizzard doesn't need hype to build up awareness.

Someone get this poor gamer a history of Sega book.

Hardware's not the same as software, but lack of marketing lead-in will kill them both.

[KingGorilla]

One recent game that comes to mind is Rise of Legends. Announced day 1 of E3 that it had hit shelves. Awesome game, cool setting, colossal flop. I think that actually ruined Big Huge.

[Antdude]

Having just come back from Blizzcon, I can confirm a few things:

1. Blizz's next game will *not* be another MMO. Blizzard is still learning how to cope with the demands of WoW. I talked to many devs, who all said as much; As great as WoW's success is, they don't want to take on another MMO anytime soon.

2. Wrath of the Lich King will just add to their existing overhead. I played it, it's still pretty rough. I think it will be a great expansion, but having seen it, I seriously doubt they'll meet their yearly expansion goal.

3. Starcraft 2 looks and plays great. The new units rock, and the siege tank has been redesigned since the first announcement. Looks way cooler. We were able to test out 2v2 MP and a single-player skirmish mode with the Protoss and Terrans. The reason we haven't seen much on the Zerg is because of how the single-player campaign will unfold. The Zerg are keeping a low profile for some reason that will be revealed eventually. From talking to the devs and attending the panels on SC2, I think Blizz may keep the Zerg under wraps so they don't spoil whatever surprises the Zerg may have.

4. SC: Ghost is not dead, it's on indefinite hold. Whatever that means, at least they haven't killed it outright. But talking about it seems to get everyone pissed off. Ghost is a painful subject at Blizzard. I heard several devs actually say, 'The first rule about Starcraft Ghost is, do not talk about Starcraft Ghost.' No idea what'll happen with this.

5. Diablo 3 is very much on their minds, even if they won't talk directly about their plans for it. It was obvious that they still love the world. This is not a dead franchise, they're just not ready to spill the beans on it.

[KingGorilla]

All of that "More MMO" BS, is that still from that fucking VU powerpoint from last year(or is it 2 years ago now)?

[Talon-]

I don't know why Blizzard was allowing StarCraft: Ghost to be made with their label on it...when it was being developed by an outside company.

The way I feel about Hellgate: London is this: I don't want FPS elements in my next Diablo game. I just want the same thing that's made the Diablo series great: dozens of skill trees for character types, endless item types (whether by way of Rares, Uniques, and Runewords), and, most importantly, fun combat. To you, it may be mindless clicking (actually...it sort of is), but I loved running through Act V with the snowy landscapes and then the Worldstone chamber.

Now, could it be awesome? Yeah, that's perfectly possible. I'm definitely going to take a look into it, but I would still rather play D3 than Hellgate: London.

Diablo to me is more addicting than crack just because of the items. That's what I can't wait for the next one.

[KingGorilla]

There is Mythos Talon.

[Talon-]

There is Mythos Talon.
I mean the mythos of the game is okay but not as interesting as WarCraft. It's really not that important to me. Granted it's fantasy, but parts of it are just silly.

Especially the stupidity that was the ending to the expansion.

[Sl1pstream]

I don't know why Blizzard was allowing StarCraft: Ghost to be made with their label on it...when it was being developed by an outside company.

Glitch was great.

[Hemalin]

Glitch was great.
It was being worked on by another developer before Swinging Ape was brought on and then bought out.

[KingGorilla]

I mean the mythos of the game is okay but not as interesting as WarCraft. It's really not that important to me. Granted it's fantasy, but parts of it are just silly.

Especially the stupidity that was the ending to the expansion.

No, Hellgate ships with a very D2 style game titled Mythos.

[DubiousQuality]

BAHAHAHAH developers would have to love you. All they need to do is make the graphic nice and pretty and they've got you sold. Well I guess some people know what makes a good game....don't worry it will come to you eventually.

Yeah the thing is, click fests arent all that engaging in the gameplay deptment to me in the first place. I hardly found Diablo or Diablo 2 very compelling gameplay wise to begin with. When it looks like ass to boot like both diablo's did and SC2 looks. I can get my RTS fix elsewhere with better visuals.

[DubiousQuality]

Having just come back from Blizzcon, I can confirm a few things:

1. Blizz's next game will *not* be another MMO. Blizzard is still learning how to cope with the demands of WoW. I talked to many devs, who all said as much; As great as WoW's success is, they don't want to take on another MMO anytime soon.

2. Wrath of the Lich King will just add to their existing overhead. I played it, it's still pretty rough. I think it will be a great expansion, but having seen it, I seriously doubt they'll meet their yearly expansion goal.

3. Starcraft 2 looks and plays great. The new units rock, and the siege tank has been redesigned since the first announcement. Looks way cooler. We were able to test out 2v2 MP and a single-player skirmish mode with the Protoss and Terrans. The reason we haven't seen much on the Zerg is because of how the single-player campaign will unfold. The Zerg are keeping a low profile for some reason that will be revealed eventually. From talking to the devs and attending the panels on SC2, I think Blizz may keep the Zerg under wraps so they don't spoil whatever surprises the Zerg may have.

4. SC: Ghost is not dead, it's on indefinite hold. Whatever that means, at least they haven't killed it outright. But talking about it seems to get everyone pissed off. Ghost is a painful subject at Blizzard. I heard several devs actually say, 'The first rule about Starcraft Ghost is, do not talk about Starcraft Ghost.' No idea what'll happen with this.

5. Diablo 3 is very much on their minds, even if they won't talk directly about their plans for it. It was obvious that they still love the world. This is not a dead franchise, they're just not ready to spill the beans on it.

Your whole post pretty much sums up what I hate about blizzard. Ooo we can't talk about that its hush hush! here! look at this kick ass cinematic! Yeah the game won't look anything like that, Hell it won't even have last gen graphics! ooo super secret hype hype hype!

Most overrated dev in the industry.

[Hemalin]

Your whole post pretty much sums up what I hate about blizzard. Ooo we can't talk about that its hush hush! here! look at this kick ass cinematic! Yeah the game won't look anything like that, Hell it won't even have last gen graphics! ooo super secret hype hype hype!

Most overrated dev in the industry.

When they announced Starcraft 2 they showed gameplay footage along with the cinematic so I don't see how you can complain about it. So you're upset that Blizzard doesn't announce games until they actually have something to show for it?

[DubiousQuality]

When they announced Starcraft 2 they showed gameplay footage along with the cinematic so I don't see how you can complain about it. So you're upset that Blizzard doesn't announce games until they actually have something to show for it?

No, I'm upset that so many people put Blizzard up on a pedestal, when it takes them twice as long as any other dev in the industry to get a project done, never push tech boundaries so their title can run on lil bobby's pos computer well, hype the hell outta everything and generally don't innovate at all but gamers buy it anyway and proclaim it the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Hemalin]

No, I'm upset that so many people put Blizzard up on a pedestal, when it takes them twice as long as any other dev in the industry to get a project done, never push tech boundaries so their title can run on lil bobby's pos computer well, hype the hell outta everything and generally don't innovate at all but gamers buy it anyway and proclaim it the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So you're upset that they don't release buggy shovelware or that their games don't require a $2000 PC? I don't see them hype anything, it is the fans that get excited because Blizzard has made great games. Why does a game need to be innovative for it to be a great game?

[DubiousQuality]

So you're upset that they don't release buggy shovelware or that their games don't require a $2000 PC? I don't see them hype anything, it is the fans that get excited because Blizzard has made great games. Why does a game need to be innovative for it to be a great game?

You're taking me out of context. I didn't say a game had to be innovative to be great, I'd just for once like to see blizzard actually do so. Theres alot of developers out there who can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in a reasonable about of time and have it at least look current. Blizzard does not do this, they take 5 years to do a cookie cutter RTS with 2003 graphics and everyone proclaims it's great! woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait!

Personally I don't understand why but then again I like to think I'm not a sheep either.

[Hemalin]

Blizzard does not do this, they take 5 years to do a cookie cutter RTS with 2003 graphics and everyone proclaims it's great! woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait!


Maybe people are more concerned with fun gameplay. Not everyone has to be a graphics whore.

[Crowe]

No, I'm upset that so many people put Blizzard up on a pedestal, when it takes them twice as long as any other dev in the industry to get a project done, never push tech boundaries so their title can run on lil bobby's pos computer well, hype the hell outta everything and generally don't innovate at all but gamers buy it anyway and proclaim it the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Where do I start?

Does it matter how long they take? Why should time mean anything? Its the end product that matters. Also when Blizzard announce something at least they show some game footage.

And what the fuck is wrong with a game being able to run on little bobbies computer? The more the merrier. Not every company has to push tech boundaries, why should Blizzard have to step up and do it. I mean it's clear they are not concerned about it, and it clear that it hasn't negatively affected the popularity of their games of hindered sales.

And in regards to innovation. If something is working, why change it.

You're taking me out of context. I didn't say a game had to be innovative to be great, I'd just for once like to see blizzard actually do so. Theres alot of developers out there who can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in a reasonable about of time and have it at least look current. Blizzard does not do this, they take 5 years to do a cookie cutter RTS with 2003 graphics and everyone proclaims it's great! woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait!

Personally I don't understand why but then again I like to think I'm not a sheep either.

-Why did people still play Starcraft 2 years after it was released?
-Why do people still play Starcraft now...ten years after release?
-Why is it the national sport of South Korea?
-Why do people still play Diablo 2 6 or 7 years after release?
-Why do people still play warcraft 3?
-Why do millions of people Worldwide play World of Warcraft? Spending money each month to do so?

Blizzard knows what they want, and what their fans want....and rather than try and push it out within a year. They work on it continually until they've gotten where they wanted to be.

Sure Starcraft is cookie cutter, but its fast paced, hectic, and fuck it's Incredibly enjoyable. These are what makes Starcraft work. And that why Starcraft 2 is going to be similiar, when something works, and when people still love it, why change it too much.

You say we are sheep, we play Blizzard games simply because they are made by Blizzard!! I don't laugh at you, I pity you. You are just another sorry fool trying to be different, going for the whole 'minority' jive.

[easi]

You say we are sheep, we play Blizzard games simply because they are made by Blizzard!!

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8761/lookuplolhc5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

edit: 1337 - I'll never wash this account again

[Voodoo]

You're taking me out of context. I didn't say a game had to be innovative to be great, I'd just for once like to see blizzard actually do so. Theres alot of developers out there who can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in a reasonable about of time and have it at least look current. Blizzard does not do this, they take 5 years to do a cookie cutter RTS with 2003 graphics and everyone proclaims it's great! woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait!

Personally I don't understand why but then again I like to think I'm not a sheep either.
Who are these developers you speak of that can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in reasonable time and have it look current?

What is a cookie cutter RTS? Do you mean one that is made with the same or similar formula as Warcraft? As far as I know, Blizzard has been the first for many things as far as RTS games are concerned. The only thing someone beat them to the punch with was destructable environments. Then again, there is only one good RTS currently that has those... Have you played that one?

I think you are more concerned with not being a "sheep" than actually enjoying good games.

[Crowe]

Who are these developers you speak of that can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in reasonable time and have it look current?

What is a cookie cutter RTS? Do you mean one that is made with the same or similar formula as Warcraft? As far as I know, Blizzard has been the first for many things as far as RTS games are concerned. The only thing someone beat them to the punch with was destructable environments. Then again, there is only one good RTS currently that has those... Have you played that one?

I think you are more concerned with not being a "sheep" than actually enjoying good games.

I think by cookie cutter he means its.....hell I don't even know and I said it was cookie cutter.

Does having 3 races..all of which have incredibly different units, buildings, building speeds etc mean a game is cookie cutter. Maybe it's cookie cutter because every RTS before it all had 3 incredibly different races and incredibly balanced gameplay.

[Crowe]

Double Post.

[Voodoo]

I think by cookie cutter he means its.....hell I don't even know and I said it was cookie cutter.

Does having 3 races..all of which have incredibly different units, buildings, building speeds etc mean a game is cookie cutter. Maybe it's cookie cutter because every RTS before it all had 3 incredibly different races and incredibly balanced gameplay.
Hmm... Nope still don't follow. Are you saying that it is essentially Blizzard's cookie cutter/RTS formula that Blizzard keeps reusing? As far as I am aware, they only made one RTS that had three races. Did I miss another one? Or is there an RTS from another company that they are using the formula of? There have been many RTS games that didn't follow the, what is considered standard, RTS formula and we all know what happened to those... Dark Reign... Earth 2150... Battlezone... Yeah... I would say that stearing too far from standard formula may end up dooming your game in RTS. In RTS it is definitely baby steps as soon as you deviate from a known and solid RTS formula.

[Talon-]

No, Hellgate ships with a very D2 style game titled Mythos.

Ah, sorry. I haven't heard a thing about Mythos. I'll look it up.

Christ Blizzard gets so much love because their games come out with so much polish. I've had more fun with WarCraft III, Diablo II, and StarCraft then any other games this side of TFC on my computer. I devote so much time to War3 and D2 and I never once got bored of it. I could pick it up right now and have just as much fun.

You can go play your Strategic Commander or whatever with your shiny graphics, but I'll take a Blizzard RTS any day. And it seems a couple million people will be joining me.

You're taking me out of context. I didn't say a game had to be innovative to be great, I'd just for once like to see blizzard actually do so. Theres alot of developers out there who can put a title on the shelf without it being a buggy mess in a reasonable about of time and have it at least look current. Blizzard does not do this, they take 5 years to do a cookie cutter RTS with 2003 graphics and everyone proclaims it's great! woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait!

Personally I don't understand why but then again I like to think I'm not a sheep either.

We haven't even seen 1/2 or even 1/3 of the units in SC2 and you're already passing judgment on this game. That screams of what people were doing with Assassin's Creed when the game's development is STILL IN PROGRESS. Not to mention that the original SC and the WC series of games were innovative in their own ways back in the day.

[DubiousQuality]

Hmm... Nope still don't follow. Are you saying that it is essentially Blizzard's cookie cutter/RTS formula that Blizzard keeps reusing? As far as I am aware, they only made one RTS that had three races. Did I miss another one? Or is there an RTS from another company that they are using the formula of? There have been many RTS games that didn't follow the, what is considered standard, RTS formula and we all know what happened to those... Dark Reign... Earth 2150... Battlezone... Yeah... I would say that stearing too far from standard formula may end up dooming your game in RTS. In RTS it is definitely baby steps as soon as you deviate from a known and solid RTS formula.

Ohs nos he attacked my precious Blizzard! Quick! Blizzard is the best Coalition unite!

What I'm trying to say is I don't think Blizzard is all that and a bag of chips. If I took 5 years to put each title out, I'd sure as shit hope it'd be somewhat polished.

C&C3 is a good example of an rts with great visuals that is fun to play. No it doesn't innovate either but it looks good and runs well. Forgive me for wanting to see Blizzard raise the bar graphically just once.

If any other dev did the things Blizzard did. (take forever per title, titles look like crap when shipped, titles aren't innovative and esentially rehashes of the last prequel) they would get lambasted. Blizzard? They get praise for it.

Forgive me if I don't jump on the blizzard is the bestest train.

[Voodoo]

Ohs nos he attacked my precious Blizzard! Quick! Blizzard is the best Coalition unite!

What I'm trying to say is I don't think Blizzard is all that and a bag of chips. If I took 5 years to put each title out, I'd sure as shit hope it'd be somewhat polished.

C&C3 is a good example of an rts with great visuals that is fun to play. No it doesn't innovate either but it looks good and runs well. Forgive me for wanting to see Blizzard raise the bar graphically just once.

If any other dev did the things Blizzard did. (take forever per title, titles look like crap when shipped, titles aren't innovative and esentially rehashes of the last prequel) they would get lambasted. Blizzard? They get praise for it.

Forgive me if I don't jump on the blizzard is the bestest train.

Let's see... Do you suppose that SC2 will have a huge install base? Why would Blizzard want to limit their install base with something like C&C3 when they can make a engine that offers great gameplay without the overly flashy graphics.

I believe that Blizzard's business model is done extremely well. This is why they have existed as they have for over ten years now... There are very few development studios that are this old.

I do have a comment though, you made a statement about Blizzard doing cookie cutter product and then you brought up C&C3 as your shining example or a great modern RTS. Have you ever tried such games as Dawn of War or Company of Heroes? Those are two titles I can think of right off my head which are not cookie cutter and were successful. What do you think about those?

[DubiousQuality]

Let's see... Do you suppose that SC2 will have a huge install base? Why would Blizzard want to limit their install base with something like C&C3 when they can make a engine that offers great gameplay without the overly flashy graphics.

I believe that Blizzard's business model is done extremely well. This is why they have existed as they have for over ten years now... There are very few development studios that are this old.

I do have a comment though, you made a statement about Blizzard doing cookie cutter product and then you brought up C&C3 as your shining example or a great modern RTS. Have you ever tried such games as Dawn of War or Company of Heroes? Those are two titles I can think of right off my head which are not cookie cutter and were successful. What do you think about those?

DoW I didn't much care for, CoH was fantastic though, and also had awesome graphics. I do understand what you're saying about their business model and thats all well and fine. I just expect more, especially when it takes them so long to get a title out the door. I was a huge diablo 1 fan, played it to death, made a ton of good friends over Bnet a few of which I still keep in contact with. Blizzard made huge promises with Diablo 2, cut half the things they promised, the game looked like ass by the time it actually did ship, and really by then didn't do it for me. So maybe I'm just holding a grudge. But really I expect more from supposidly "top tier" dev houses. Blizzard titles just don't really impress me at this point.

[KingGorilla]

You can go play your Strategic Commander or whatever with your shiny graphics, but I'll take a Blizzard RTS any day. And it seems a couple million people will be joining me.

You Dare BLASPHEME the name of Relic and their RTS genius...nay divine hand.

[Voodoo]

DoW I didn't much care for, CoH was fantastic though, and also had awesome graphics. I do understand what you're saying about their business model and thats all well and fine. I just expect more, especially when it takes them so long to get a title out the door. I was a huge diablo 1 fan, played it to death, made a ton of good friends over Bnet a few of which I still keep in contact with. Blizzard made huge promises with Diablo 2, cut half the things they promised, the game looked like ass by the time it actually did ship, and really by then didn't do it for me. So maybe I'm just holding a grudge. But really I expect more from supposidly "top tier" dev houses. Blizzard titles just don't really impress me at this point.
You know I really have to agree with all of your points. Frankly, Blizzard doesn't have much for excuses now as they have just about the highest income for a development house thanks to their first try (unbelieveable it was their first try) into the MMO market. I really think at this point Blizzard could really afford to have more than three games being developed at the same time. What you said about their time to product is exactly correct. Relic takes hardly the same amount of time and has put out some very kick ass RTS games.

[DubiousQuality]

You know I really have to agree with all of your points. Frankly, Blizzard doesn't have much for excuses now as they have just about the highest income for a development house thanks to their first try (unbelieveable it was their first try) into the MMO market. I really think at this point Blizzard could really afford to have more than three games being developed at the same time. What you said about their time to product is exactly correct. Relic takes hardly the same amount of time and has put out some very kick ass RTS games.

Yeah thats pretty much what I'm getting at. Why has SC2 been in the oven so long? It barely looks better than WC3 if at all even. And I'm sure it'll pretty much be SC 1 all over, which don't get me wrong thats not a bad thing but really.. after all that dev time you'd expect more. I do anyway.

Thats why I say the're overrated, how long was CoH in development? 24 months? If that? It isn't buggy, looks fantastic, adds some new twists to the genre and is really fun to play. Yet it didn't take them 5+ years to get it out the door.

Blizzard has a great cinematics team, they always did, I give them all the credit in the world for their kick ass cinematics and trailers. The actual games themselves tho while decent for the most part just don't get me excited. I know I'm in the minority on the topic. I'm fine with that but thats just how I feel.

[Crowe]

Starcraft 2 MUST be at good as they can get it. It needs to be balanced as MUCH as they can get it too. There is a lot more riding on this than most of their games. South Korea pretty much lives on Starcraft.

They have have to play to both the casual gamer and the most hardcore of hardcore MP player. I'm pretty sure the last thing they want to do is take 2 years to bring it out only to have people be dissapointed with the sequel to on of the most popular games of ALL time. Sure I wanted Starcraft 2 three years ago. But I also want the best Starcraft 2 they can deliver. If that takes them 4 or 5 years then so be it.

So using Starcraft 2 as an example of a game they should have used to test the limits is a little rough. They have a lot more riding on it than a normal game.

[BigJonno]

Blizzard irritate the shit out of me when it comes to their fantasy offerings. They design some awesome worlds and storylines and they produce finely-balanced, compelling gameplay systems. They just seem to lack the ability to combine the two in any meaningful fashion. I'd like Diablo 3 to be a proper RPG, where you can actually interact with the world and the storyline.