By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Blizzard has fallen

ZenfoldorVGI said:
vlad321 said:

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.

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.

It's funny, because nothing I said is elitist, just the plain, brutal truth of how things stand. You also proved my point in the last half, they can do whatever they want, so they milk their playerbase. As far as I can remember, Diablo2: LoD is the Best exapnsion I have ever bought, ever, so far and it only cost me $30. I remember thinking "Holy Shit $30 instead of $25" but I did buy it and it was just mind blowing how much they improved. So far, Cata doesn't seem to be nowehere near as amazing as LoD unless they pull some serious rrabbits out of their hats before Beta ends and it goes live. SC2 is ajust a pathetic excuse for a game, I would have been feeling ripped even if I had paid $50, the game was worth $40 through and through.

I saw your thread (really shitty cpu for the gpu you have btw) and I hope you realize all new games from Blizzard can run on at least 5 year old mediocre models. I remembe being able to play WC3 on a mediocre machine from '98. when it first came out. Also, WoW is a fairly decent game, however it is just 1 game, and honestly their patches ave been hit or miss. It feels like now they are just rolling out patches because theu feel like, so when they have everythign kind of balanced out, they purposefully unbalance it somehow so they can "fix it" later on. Another disgusting practice on Blizzard's side.

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
vlad321 said:
 

It's funny, because nothing I said is elitist, just the plain, brutal truth of how things stand. You also proved my point in the last half, they can do whatever they want, so they milk their playerbase. As far as I can remember, Diablo2: LoD is the Best exapnsion I have ever bought, ever, so far and it only cost me $30. I remember thinking "Holy Shit $30 instead of $25" but I did buy it and it was just mind blowing how much they improved. So far, Cata doesn't seem to be nowehere near as amazing as LoD unless they pull some serious rrabbits out of their hats before Beta ends and it goes live. SC2 is ajust a pathetic excuse for a game, I would have been feeling ripped even if I had paid $50, the game was worth $40 through and through.

I saw your thread (really shitty cpu for the gpu you have btw) and I hope you realize all new games from Blizzard can run on at least 5 year old mediocre models. I remembe being able to play WC3 on a mediocre machine from '98. when it first came out. Also, WoW is a fairly decent game, however it is just 1 game, and honestly their patches ave been hit or miss. It feels like now they are just rolling out patches because theu feel like, so when they have everythign kind of balanced out, they purposefully unbalance it somehow so they can "fix it" later on. Another disgusting practice on Blizzard's side.

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Well, I can't comment on RTS games, and I haven't played Starcraft. Also, I might have been a little overblown with my elitist comment and I apoligize. However, I do think your comments were a little pointlessly harsh. Reminds me of a raid leader I once knew who would kick people because he thought they rolled the wrong race for a respective class.

As for my 965, lol, you are the first person I've ever heard call that a "shitty" part. With the possible exception of the (imo) sidegrade X6, I'd have to say it is AMD's best gaming processor, and while "bottlenecking" is highly relative, and different depending on the game, I think it's safe to say that the 965 is more than sufficient for 60 fps on any currently released game that I would be interested in. My mobo is the AM3 socket, so I will upgrade when AMD finally releases a better processor. I'm a little shocked that you are suggesting I go Intel. Talk about milking their customers. I could buy my 965, and in the future by an as of yet unreleased upgrade from AMD and still get off cheaper than I would if I went with some of the i7s. Intel hasn't decreased their price because they don't feel they have to. It is ironic that you flame blizzard for milking 10 extra bucks out of an Xpak and then in the same breath recommend Intel.

FYI, if the processor ever causes me to bottleneck a game I'm playing at below 60fps, then I'll upgrade it(if a better processor is out by then).

Also, I'm not sure, but I think you think I ended up going with the 480. I actually reduced that card to a 6870(see my newegg review, lol), from Sapphire. Great card. The crossfire scaling on that card is sick, so I'll probably Xfire a couple of those before it is all said and done(maybe when AMD goes next gen with their CPUs). I support AMD, so yeah, I'm very satisfied with my rig, and with that AM3 socket and 2x 16xPCIe slots that don't share bandwidth, it's forseeably futureproof from an upgrade perspective, so yeah. I thought it through, and sought advice. Trust me. I realize the 480 was too much card for my needs atm, and I'm glad I didn't add that spaceheater to my case. When an upgrade becomes necessary, it'll take me less than 5 minutes to drop a new CPU into that system.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI said:
vlad321 said:
 

It's funny, because nothing I said is elitist, just the plain, brutal truth of how things stand. You also proved my point in the last half, they can do whatever they want, so they milk their playerbase. As far as I can remember, Diablo2: LoD is the Best exapnsion I have ever bought, ever, so far and it only cost me $30. I remember thinking "Holy Shit $30 instead of $25" but I did buy it and it was just mind blowing how much they improved. So far, Cata doesn't seem to be nowehere near as amazing as LoD unless they pull some serious rrabbits out of their hats before Beta ends and it goes live. SC2 is ajust a pathetic excuse for a game, I would have been feeling ripped even if I had paid $50, the game was worth $40 through and through.

I saw your thread (really shitty cpu for the gpu you have btw) and I hope you realize all new games from Blizzard can run on at least 5 year old mediocre models. I remembe being able to play WC3 on a mediocre machine from '98. when it first came out. Also, WoW is a fairly decent game, however it is just 1 game, and honestly their patches ave been hit or miss. It feels like now they are just rolling out patches because theu feel like, so when they have everythign kind of balanced out, they purposefully unbalance it somehow so they can "fix it" later on. Another disgusting practice on Blizzard's side.

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Well, I can't comment on RTS games, and I haven't played Starcraft. Also, I might have been a little overblown with my elitist comment and I apoligize. However, I do think your comments were a little pointlessly harsh. Reminds me of a raid leader I once knew who would kick people because he thought they rolled the wrong race for a respective class.

As for my 965, lol, you are the first person I've ever heard call that a "shitty" part. With the possible exception of the (imo) sidegrade X6, I'd have to say it is AMD's best gaming processor, and while "bottlenecking" is highly relative, and different depending on the game, I think it's safe to say that the 965 is more than sufficient for 60 fps on any currently released game that I would be interested in. My mobo is the AM3 socket, so I will upgrade when AMD finally releases a better processor. I'm a little shocked that you are suggesting I go Intel. Talk about milking their customers. I could buy my 965, and in the future by an as of yet unreleased upgrade from AMD and still get off cheaper than I would if I went with some of the i7s. Intel hasn't decreased their price because they don't feel they have to. It is ironic that you flame blizzard for milking 10 extra bucks out of an Xpak and then in the same breath recommend Intel.

FYI, if the processor ever causes me to bottleneck a game I'm playing at below 60fps, then I'll upgrade it(if a better processor is out by then).

Also, I'm not sure, but I think you think I ended up going with the 480. I actually reduced that card to a 6870(see my newegg review, lol), from Sapphire. Great card. The crossfire scaling on that card is sick, so I'll probably Xfire a couple of those before it is all said and done(maybe when AMD goes next gen with their CPUs). I support AMD, so yeah, I'm very satisfied with my rig, and with that AM3 socket and 2x 16xPCIe slots that don't share bandwidth, it's forseeably futureproof from an upgrade perspective, so yeah. I thought it through, and sought advice. Trust me. I realize the 480 was too much card for my needs atm, and I'm glad I didn't add that spaceheater to my case. When an upgrade becomes necessary, it'll take me less than 5 minutes to drop a new CPU into that system.

Well I do kick people if they dont know what the fuck they are doing but pretend they do/dont let anyone know.

Also sorry, I thuoght you had a 480 because you said everythign was shipped in your initial post and it had a link to a 480. Alright a 965 isnt as bad for your card then. But i can tell you go play metro 2033 at max and even my set up (930/480) can have troubles at times. I also recommend Intel because their engineering is just better, Blizzard's games lately have been barely above the "good" mark.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

I got disconnected with Blizz too, so you're definitely not alone.

I enjoyed Torchlight suprisingly more than I did (or remember of doing) with D2 and this circumstance alone was enough for me to stop holding breath for D3. It won't be anything closer to D1 so I stopped caring. I didn't buy SC2. And eventually I started despising WoW as much as any other MMO around. That's quite a turnover from good old times where I spent hella lot of time playing Blizzard games from RnR Racing till WC3.



sethnintendo said:

I used to be the biggest Blizzard fan there was or close to it.  I loved Diablo 1/2, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, and Warcraft 2.  It seems lately that I am not interested in any of their new titles.  I kicked my WoW addiction and pawned it off to one of my friends by giving my account away.  I don't see myself buying SC2.  I played the beta and I really didn't care.  Having split the game into 3 different games also helps me not buying it.  I can handle buying one expansion but buying 3 different full priced games is way beyond me.  Sure online is king in SC but to have the story split into three parts is unnecessary.  They did it just fine in Starcraft and Brood Wars.  I just looked at the Diablo 3 new class trailer and it barely interests me at all (makes me not even want to buy the game).  Sure I loved Diablo 2 but the grinding at the high levels was tedious, pointless, and boring.   I can go on and on about how Blizzard doesn't feel the same to me but perhaps my taste have changed (or perhaps Blizzard has failed to come up with something original in 8 plus years).   Anyone else feel disconnected from Blizzard?

Saying SC2 is split into 3 game is like saying Halo or Uncharted were split into 3 games. They are each, in and of themselves, full games. But it will take 3 games to do all they accomplish. Noone can honestly say SCII feels like 1/3 of a game. There's plenty of SP, and as always, the amazing MP.



Around the Network
Jereel Hunter said:
sethnintendo said:

I used to be the biggest Blizzard fan there was or close to it.  I loved Diablo 1/2, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, and Warcraft 2.  It seems lately that I am not interested in any of their new titles.  I kicked my WoW addiction and pawned it off to one of my friends by giving my account away.  I don't see myself buying SC2.  I played the beta and I really didn't care.  Having split the game into 3 different games also helps me not buying it.  I can handle buying one expansion but buying 3 different full priced games is way beyond me.  Sure online is king in SC but to have the story split into three parts is unnecessary.  They did it just fine in Starcraft and Brood Wars.  I just looked at the Diablo 3 new class trailer and it barely interests me at all (makes me not even want to buy the game).  Sure I loved Diablo 2 but the grinding at the high levels was tedious, pointless, and boring.   I can go on and on about how Blizzard doesn't feel the same to me but perhaps my taste have changed (or perhaps Blizzard has failed to come up with something original in 8 plus years).   Anyone else feel disconnected from Blizzard?

Saying SC2 is split into 3 game is like saying Halo or Uncharted were split into 3 games. They are each, in and of themselves, full games. But it will take 3 games to do all they accomplish. Noone can honestly say SCII feels like 1/3 of a game. There's plenty of SP, and as always, the amazing MP.

Except that WoL isn't a game in and of itself. It is a pisspoor, unifnished story that is a complete mess. They could heav easily, EASILY removed Tosh's missions, the clonist's missions, and the protoss missions, and added a complete zerg and protoss campaigns. Also the MP isn't amazing, Bnet2 is a bucket of crap compared to what it was back in Frozen Throne, and the MP itself has been dumbed down from BW. If a scrub like me can make it near the top then it has definitely been dumbed down.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
 

 

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Is this post a joke?

Do you honetsly believe you are a good Starcraft 2 player?
How many games did you play on ladder? What ramk are you in which league?

Do you honestly believe that the fact that SC2 is easier technically than BW makes it a worse competitive game? (In that case, let me introduce you to chess, a game you'll find pathetically easy).

I do agree with what you said about the campaign, lack of chat, LAN, and the shitty Bnet (although the matchmaking is superb), that's just greed.



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

RageBot said:
vlad321 said:
 

 

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Is this post a joke?

Do you honetsly believe you are a good Starcraft 2 player?
How many games did you play on ladder? What ramk are you in which league?

Do you honestly believe that the fact that SC2 is easier technically than BW makes it a worse competitive game? (In that case, let me introduce you to chess, a game you'll find pathetically easy).

I do agree with what you said about the campaign, lack of chat, LAN, and the shitty Bnet (although the matchmaking is superb), that's just greed.


No, the gameplay is simpler than BW's. I haven't bothered playing online since they changed Platinum into Diamond and shifted everythign else one league up but back then within 2 or so weeks I was playing at the top of the Gold Ladder, as in 1st on today's equivalency of Platinum, and I am absolutely terrible at micro. I also played Random btw, so I had to play zerg as well.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
RageBot said:
vlad321 said:
 

 

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Is this post a joke?

Do you honetsly believe you are a good Starcraft 2 player?
How many games did you play on ladder? What ramk are you in which league?

Do you honestly believe that the fact that SC2 is easier technically than BW makes it a worse competitive game? (In that case, let me introduce you to chess, a game you'll find pathetically easy).

I do agree with what you said about the campaign, lack of chat, LAN, and the shitty Bnet (although the matchmaking is superb), that's just greed.


No, the gameplay is simpler than BW's. I haven't bothered playing online since they changed Platinum into Diamond and shifted everythign else one league up but back then within 2 or so weeks I was playing at the top of the Gold Ladder, as in 1st on today's equivalency of Platinum, and I am absolutely terrible at micro. I also played Random btw, so I had to play zerg as well.

Okay, so let me explain something to you.

I was at the top of my division in platinum, and i'm nothing but an okay player.

You seem to assume that rankings really matter, but they don't, the difference between you/me, and someone who is actually a top player (as in, goung to tournemants etc) is so big, that if we play them, we will never win, maybe once out of 100 tries.

And no, other than the fact that it is technicallty easier, the gameplay is pretty much the same between the two games, maybe even more difficult in SC2 because of different macro options that you need to keep on using (Chrono Boost with Toss, MULE with Terran, Spawn Larva/Spread Creep with Zerg)



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

RageBot said:
vlad321 said:
RageBot said:
vlad321 said:
 

 

Edit: Blizzard has always had "easy to play ahrd to master" games, however SC2 is more or less "easy to play, easy to master" as well, again. I'm terrible in RTS and I can beat more than 75% of the people it seems, the only explanation is that they dumbed it down for all the noobs to play. It's the same as FPS getting slower so all the chobs could keep up with people.


Is this post a joke?

Do you honetsly believe you are a good Starcraft 2 player?
How many games did you play on ladder? What ramk are you in which league?

Do you honestly believe that the fact that SC2 is easier technically than BW makes it a worse competitive game? (In that case, let me introduce you to chess, a game you'll find pathetically easy).

I do agree with what you said about the campaign, lack of chat, LAN, and the shitty Bnet (although the matchmaking is superb), that's just greed.


No, the gameplay is simpler than BW's. I haven't bothered playing online since they changed Platinum into Diamond and shifted everythign else one league up but back then within 2 or so weeks I was playing at the top of the Gold Ladder, as in 1st on today's equivalency of Platinum, and I am absolutely terrible at micro. I also played Random btw, so I had to play zerg as well.

Okay, so let me explain something to you.

I was at the top of my division in platinum, and i'm nothing but an okay player.

You seem to assume that rankings really matter, but they don't, the difference between you/me, and someone who is actually a top player (as in, goung to tournemants etc) is so big, that if we play them, we will never win, maybe once out of 100 tries.

And no, other than the fact that it is technicallty easier, the gameplay is pretty much the same between the two games, maybe even more difficult in SC2 because of different macro options that you need to keep on using (Chrono Boost with Toss, MULE with Terran, Spawn Larva/Spread Creep with Zerg)

That's all good an great, but how do you explain the fact that Micro plays a smaller role in this game? Many many things that would require micro were removed from between BW and SC2, and many things that used micro in SC2 but were somehow deemed overpowered were removed from SC2, i. e. the infestor burrowing and casting. Macro is the easiest thing to train, meanwhile micro isn't even needed in SC2 until the very very top.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835