Diablo (hack n slash RPG)

StarCraft (RTS)

And before WoW. There was WarCraft (also an RTS).

They don't do a lot, and what they do usually sells a lot.  Because of this, it is hard to determine if they "fell".  As I can tell, their approach is to not do a lot, but try to nail everything down.  They do move slow and take a long time with a title.

They also made a few games like Rock n Roll Racing and The Lost Vikings for Super Nintendo. But that was 15 years ago, at least.

All of their games are timeless classics that are still played today. This isn't EA sports here. It takes time to produce quality videogames and Blizzard is a high end developer.

The best thing about Blizzard is how well they support their games post launch. They keep patching and changing the games until they get them perfect according to the fans. Look at Diablo II. A good game, that turned into a true AAA classic after the final gamechanging patch was released. I still have my Meteorb Sorc on disc.

I also like that Blizzard always supported the Mac. The Mac version of WoW has more features (although it runs at a slightly lower frame rate).

I never liked RTS games, so not playing SC, but Diablo 3 is a day 1 purchase for me.

I dunno if it has fallen, but Blizzard has definitely started to have worse quality. The last game the realeased before SC2 was WoW back in '04. That means in 6 years they only managed to release SC2. What do they have to show for it?

Split campaigns, there is NO reason why the Specter and the Colonist arcs, as well as the Protoss, couldn't have been scrapped and in their place they could have put int a valid Protoss and Zerg Campaigns, none other than wanting to milk you for the money.

Battle.net 2.0, the biggest abomination of online gaming in a LONG LONG time. They removed so much that it's kind of sad, on the up side though, they added facebook integration! As it stands, Gamespy back from 2000 is better than this shit. Let that statement sink in.

Multiplayer is a similar, yet dumbed down, versoin of BW. Cut it whichever way you want, the multiplayer is still the very much like BW's, and the fact that I can actually get to the 2nd highest league only means it had to be dumbed down to hell (I certainly didn't get better at this) for this to happen. Then again, if you cater to the chobs and noobs they will praise, so that's why SC2 has been getting so much praise.

Also SC2 cost$60, and Cataclysm is $40. For $40 for an expansion pack I would expect it to come with a model and have her give me a blowjob, because I cannot imagine any expansion packs worth $40.

Diablo 3 is looking pretty fucking good though, they havent made an announcement that will cripple the game, yet.

As for the "your tastes are chaning" argument, go play WC3 or Diablo 2 and tell me if you enjoy them. If you do then your tastes haven't changed and Blizzard has changed. As it stands, as a whole package, SC2 has been their worst game so far, and I enjoy playing any of their previous games more than what they released.

Well as far as the starcraft II argument goes, I hate all RTS games and never play them, so that is one reason I don't give much a shit about that or any RTS game, I guess.

I'll never understand their appeal.

Stop playing into the elitist generic egotistical PC fan stereotype you so often personify. You sound like a certain no avatar having member we all know. As far as your cost argument goes, give it up. That is the fair market price non-piratable games go for nowadays. Since Blizzard does have online validation, they don't have to slash the prices on their games to get PC fans to pay for them.

As a brand new high end gaming PC owner myself(see my thread) I have to say the only good exclusive AAA stuff coming down the pike for PC is from Blizzard, and luckily, Blizzard is imo one of the best develpers in the world even if they ONLY released WoW patches and expansions, because that is one hell of a game and almost certainly the biggest and most profitable game in the history of time.

How many people does that game employ? Farmers, GMs, devs, authors, artists, designers, developers, producers, support staff, web designers, managers, accountants, gaming teams, the list goes on and on.

@ZenfoldorVGI

I don't think he was being "elitist" when he was describing his SC2 experience.  I have only played a little of the beta myself so I can't comment on it entirely.  If he feels it has been dumb downed from SC1/BW then that is his opinion.  He has even provided that he has climbed up to 2nd highest league for his backup.  Perhaps Blizzard did dumb down SC2 for the masses.  I know for fact that they semi screwed over the Zerg even though I was able to beat a few horrible people in the beta with them.  Anyways, you don't care about RTS as your previous post indicated. So lets talk about WoW.  A lot of vetern WoW players will agree that they dumbed down WoW for the masses.  Who can blame them though, I suppose you want more people to pay to play the game.  There is still skill involved but not too much as it once required (although in pvp if you don't know what the hell you are doing you can easily get your ass kicked unless you are facing a superior class compared to yours).

WoW has been so much a cash cow and has occupied Blizzard's time that they barely could even support their other two franchises/take forever to release (SC and Diablo).  A company as great as Blizzard was (and I suppose still is) should be able to have more than three franchises.  What happened to Blackthorne, Lost Vikings, Rock n Roll Racing besides them releasing GBA ports of SNES games?  They have 3 franchises now (Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo).  Sure they are great but they should be able to do something else for a change.  I think Blizzard could make a bad ass turned based strategy game.  Sure not too many people love that genre but if they could make something like Advance Wars (but better); I am sure it would sell. 

Well, it would be hard to make a better SRPG than Fire Emblem, but to each his own. I'm not saying that the ONLY important game is WoW(and PVP/high end PVE in WoW IS massively skill based). I'm saying that WoW is the best game in that genre yet to be released. So is Diablo II in that genre, and probably Starcraft in RTS if I've heard correctly. Those are games that changed and mainstreamed those genres by making them accessable. Complaining about accessability like it is a bad thing and calling people "noobs" is about as elitist as you can get, and saying it isn't elitist because you hear it a million times a day just means you spend a lot of time conversing with other elitist PC or console gamers.

Blizzard has always made games that are highly acessable as far as PC requirements and accessability to new players. That is how they differ from the lesser and now mostly dead PC exclusive developers, and that is why their games are so successful. However, their games also have great depth in end game. This is still true, and for example, end game PVP in WoW is massively in depth and a good player will completely own a group of "n00bs" as us PC gamers call them, lol.

To say that WoW has no depth, is to say that being a n00b in WoW is insignificant, which if you've ever PUG'd or PVPd in a terrible arena team, you know is a laughable assertion. WoW is accessable, but it certainly is also very deep. It is just streamlined. Its accessability is its biggest strength, and the reason it is so successful. It is also the reason they have balanced the classes and the end game so well. Adding unneeded variables(see DAoC) can kill your ability to ever balance your classes, or end game. WoW also gets a bad rap as casual because it isn't punishing, IE(loose your gear after it breaks, after you die, lose exp/levels after you die). However, those "punishment" tropes are NOT popular. They cause a MMO to be inaccessable and thus aren't, nor ever were needed. WoW is MMO done correctly, and that is an amazing feat.