Software, Computers, Video Games and D&D UtilitiesGeneral discussion on computer software and hardware, PC and console games, and RPG utilities such as eTools, PC GEN, etc.
Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later. Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.
Given how many years they spent on War3, and how many changes the game underwent from the time it was first announced (and previewed!), I think it's difficult to characterize it as being "pushed out" at all, unless it was being pushed by an army of carnivorous snails.
They claim it is because they want to release a bug free game, which I would normally agree with, knowing Blizzard's history.
However, it is more than a coincindence that the press release came out right before the release of their WoW card game.
I suspect they didn't want to leech off of card game sales.
No, it's a coincidence. Blizzard is keeping Vivendi Universal Games afloat all by themselves. They have 7 million subscribers worldwide, more than all the other MMORPG games out there combined. And nearly every one of them will be buying the Burning Crusade, instantly making it the best-selling MMORPG expansion of all time.
Even if only a quarter of all WoW players pick up the card game, that's almost 2 million players.
There's not a lot of worry about the card game or the expansion doing poorly.
The world has enough StarCraft clones already. Blizzard doesn't need to make one.
But Blizzard never does new games. They always use well-proven game concepts.
And StarCraft has proven very well.
Also, what game is out there, which is similar enough to StarCraft to be considered a worthy alternative?
I was thinking about getting Armies of Exigo, which looked pretty fun (played the demo version), though it's more like WarCraft than StarCraft, being fantasy and all that.
There certainly are plenty RTS games, but none of those I have seen manage to reach the level of StarCraft.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!
In Memoriam Dave Arneson ( April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax ( March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
Just curious, as I'm not a MMORPG player (somehow, the idea of plunking down money for software followed by monthy fees to play when I have limited play time bothers me) -- why is it that DDO seems to be doing so poorly? I'd think with the D&D name, it would have a real shot at success?
First, the name doesn't have as much value as it used to and the game doesn't adhere to D&D rules and tropes nearly as well as one would have expected. (NWN is what you want for that.) In a marketplace stuffed to the gills with fantasy MMORPGs (all of them inspired by D&D), the name alone isn't enough to stand out.
Secondly, as was said, it's not really friendly to hopping on and off when you have 30 minutes free. (This is also one of the things that has sunk EQ1 and threatened to sink EQ2.) If an MMORPG's biggest advantage over tabletop gaming is that I can log on for 30 minutes and play before work, there needs to be something meaningful that I can do during that time.
Finally, it doesn't offer anything fundementally different than GuildWars does. And GuildWars, while not a "real" MMORPG due to the way the game architecture works, is free. Paying $15/month for something roughly comparable to a free game isn't going to be a compelling argument to a lot of buyers.
But Blizzard never does new games. They always use well-proven game concepts.
You wouldn't have known that during the StarCraft beta test. People HOWLED that it wasn't like every other RTS out there and that those differences would be the death of it. (Yes, beta testers predicted SC would be a giant flop.)
I think what Blizzard does is take everything that works in a genre, throw away the stuff that doesn't (no sitting and staring at a spellbook on a screen for 10 minutes while your wizard regains enough mana to do anything, for instance) and then cannibalizes their own ideas that have worked in the past to create a new product. (The Diablo II skill trees were inspired by the StarCraft tech trees, according to Blizzard, and showed up in the final version of talents in the WoW system, which also uses the quest-giving indicators from War3.)
And just because the StarCraft clones didn't prove memorable doesn't mean there weren't a LOT of them out there in the late 1990s and early 21st century before War3 was released.
More importantly, the War3 team had been working non-stop on StarCraft and Brood War and then War3 for something like six years altogether. Changing things up so that they didn't blow their own brains out was kind of inevitable. Companies like EA that require pumping out marginal changes in established franchises in an assembly line fashion have HUGE morale problems and massive turnover far beyond anything ever seen at Blizzard.
Sorry, I got to this party late, but it bears repeating that the Blizzard name probably sold more copies than the actualy quality of WoW.
I say this because that Blizzard name was enough for many people to buy their first MMORPG and we all know the many effective incentives the genre has to keep you playing after that initial purchase. Then you have the social aspect of the game that feeds off the huge subscriber base. If all your friends are playing it and pressuring you to play, what do you think will happen?
I have great respect for Blizzard, but I also recognize that they garner a huge traction from their name at this point. They had one good idea in their existence with Diablo; the game that influenced every other CRPG made since (mostly for the worse). Warcraft 1 and 2 were derivative RTS games. Starcraft was the game where Blizzard hit upon its winning formula I like to call the three Ps. Pilfer(from other games), Polish and Playtest. They used this extensively in Diablo 2 where they followed suit and made a clone of their own game but still found great success. Warcraft 3 same thing. Instead of the innovative RPG/RTS it started as, they backtracked to a standard RTS system and borrowed from the rather dull RPG/RTS glut of the time.
Then we get to WoW. You could seriously point out nearly every mechanism in the game and I could name its origin. All Blizzard managed to do was 1) have the Blizzard name and 2)do the obvious thing and appeal to the casual player, a market they had tapped with Diablo 2. In fact, it is amazing nothing like WoW came out sooner, all the ideas were already in place.
So in summary, I respect Blizzard because they bring some fundamentally sound design principles to bear, but they long ago stopped ranking as a truly innovative company. Now, excuse me, I have to go level my human warlock.
Then we get to WoW. You could seriously point out nearly every mechanism in the game and I could name its origin.
Questing as a major form of experience, instead of as an afterthought (EQ1) or a way to guide you into endless grinding of mooks (CoX)? (Yes, Blizzard has some of those, but it also has quite a few quests with an obscene amount of XP, even at high levels, and a ton that involve only incidental mook kills on the way to get the McGuffin or whatever.)
Quote:
In fact, it is amazing nothing like WoW came out sooner, all the ideas were already in place.
As we can see from the development of CoX, Vanguard, EQ2, whatever they're calling the Lord of the Rings game this week and other examples, people mostly want to do EQ1 "right," which means a handful of small changes. Hell, they're still persisting at this even though EQ1 hasn't worn the crown for quite some time.
There's a certain degree of self-confidence required to be a lead developer of a game. When it comes to MMORPGs, it seems that mostly gets transmuted into bizarre arrogance. (Witness SWG, EQ2 and Vanguard.)
Quote:
So in summary, I respect Blizzard because they bring some fundamentally sound design principles to bear, but they long ago stopped ranking as a truly innovative company.
I don't know they were ever "truly innovative." But you never go broke giving the folks what they want in a highly refined and polished manner. Hell, that's the entire business model for five-star hotels.
Quote:
Now, excuse me, I have to go level my human warlock.
The anti-dispel talent in the expansion that you guys get is going to be just evil in PVP.
The single player campaign was fun enough, but the multiplayer sucked and the upkeep limit was very anti-starcarft.
That's because it's not supposed to be StarCraft.
Just like how StarCraft was never just Warcraft II In Space.
Personally, I much prefer WC3 to WC2 which, while revolutionary, is a bit boring to play these days. WC3 and SC are great games, IMO, but they aren't very similar at all and it was pretty obvious from the previews that they were aiming for something different than StarCraft.
Personally, I've had a lot of fun playing with my friends on WC3, but we all dig the hero aspect of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanee
There certainly are plenty RTS games, but none of those I have seen manage to reach the level of StarCraft.
Then just play StarCraft.
__________________ In Soviet Russia, dice roll you!
Check out my webpage: The Codex Malevolence (updated 1/22/07)!
Chock full of Fiendish Conversions to D&D 3.5 (and some new material too).
Books Used Last Session: Core 3.5 Books, Dungeon Magazine, Libris Mortis (blaspheme), Complete Adventurer, PHBII
Re: WoW I think Steel Wind and Wizdru have said it best. There is so much flavor in the game. I remember getting sucked into the Westfall series of quests and almost wishing it was a single player game so I could see NPCs return to the blighted area. Wandering through the destroyed Elven lands is a very strange experience, it is the essence of Tolkein Elves, with dim light, strange luminescent glows and stange sounds.
WoW has the best instances. The instances are fun to play, have a consistent theme, and generally contain a "cut style" scene or two. WoW ease of play is also deceptive. Random factors might encourage your victory over certain encounters, goading you own to dangers you are not prepared for. Group make up is not so critical in WoW as in EQ, and overall I have had more "by the skin of my teeth" type victories than in EQ, where often the room pop'd or someone overpulled and it is time to cut and run while the monk feigns death.
Yeah, the atmosphere, leveraging the lore of three games and two expansions (and uncompleted game that got turned into a novel) before WoW, is really one of the selling points. My wife didn't know why I got sort of choked up the first time we entered the Arathi Highlands and saw the last soldiers of Stromgarde still patroling the roads, in an effort to bring back their country from the apocalyptic events of War3.
The whole game world reeks of such things, and apparently it gets kicked up a notch in the expansion (although that necessarily is mostly a sequel to Beyond the Dark Portal).
In contrast, there were numerous instances in EQ1 where something was clearly intended, it was never implemented (or implemented in a half-assed way by someone not around to know what the original plans were) or, better yet, put in half-heartedly and then jerked away later. See: half the lore dealing with Ak'Anon and the Steamfont Mountains.
In addition, it looks like WoW (and to a lesser extent, EQ2) won't be repeating the mistake of EQ1 in that each expansion gave a new complete set of capital cities that pulled people away from the rest of the world (a process that stopped after five or six expansions in EQ1, but that's still five or six too long). In WoW, even in the expansion, there will be a lot of reasons for players to come back to the old world capital cities on a regular basis, despite the shiny new locations in Outland. Nothing sucked more in EQ1 than being an expansion or more behind the cutting edge and finding everywhere else a barren ghost town.
Dumb down a game enough to where the average idiot can be successful, make death a minor inconvience, and provide an early rigid framework to "guarantee" success for a beginner. Then market the heck out of it early, have good graphics quality, and then let word of mouth do its job.
IMHO it succeeds because it feeds upon the overwhelming fear of failure which exists in the world today. By not offerring failure it makes people more comfortable and thus able to enjoy themselves, which is pretty much the point of a game from a players point of view.
Questing as a major form of experience, instead of as an afterthought (EQ1) or a way to guide you into endless grinding of mooks (CoX)? (Yes, Blizzard has some of those, but it also has quite a few quests with an obscene amount of XP, even at high levels, and a ton that involve only incidental mook kills on the way to get the McGuffin or whatever.)
I remember being surprised as heck that the decent XP from quests at lower levels wasn't continued up higher in EQ1.
I also remember spending a lot of time, as a cleric, staring at my spellbook. So much fun, yeah!
WoW is much more fun. I'd like a monk class, and for my paladin to actually be able to do something like damage in the game, but hey, those are my only complaints.
Brad
__________________ "Your taste buds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"
I've played WoW and had some fun, but the lack of depth caused me to bore quickly. In contrast, I've enjoyed the heck out of EQ2. The expansions do alot to help keep things interesting and fresh.
Of course, I enjoy D&D more than any online game. No comparison there.
__________________ We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.
--George Bernard Shaw
I said it before, I'll say it again. EQ could be the world's best game and I still wouldnt play it because of Sony customer service.
I signed up for 3 months in advance, being told by all my friends I'd love the game. I dropped out after about 6 weeks, and basically forgot about it. Then they billed me again.
I'm really pretty mellow about stuff like this, so I wasn't even mad, I just called them and said "hey, I forgot to cancel the rebill, can you help me?" and in a VERY rude voice I was told "no, we have the right to charge you, I can see that you havent been active of late but if you want the charge reversed, take it up with your credit company".
So I did, they removed the charge, but Sony can kiss my you know what. They're never seeing another dime of mine for an MMO.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
