Are there any new MMORPGs coming out soon?

[Dark Jezter]

If awesome means woefully inadequate in your dictionary. If you've followed Diablo II at all you will know that they have had nothing but security and stability problems from day one. Cheating and hacking are so widespread and rampant that they have had to ban tens of thousands of users. I would like to think that they have learned something from this debacle, but I am not very confident.

At least they're banning known hackers instead of just letting them get away with it. Granted, some people are still getting away with it, but things like that will happen when you literally have tens of thousands of users playing Diablo II online every day. Perhaps it would be possible for them to hire more people to aggresively persue hackers on battle.net, but unless you want battle.net to become a pay service instead of a free service, I wouldn't count on it.

If you're calling Blizzard software woefully inadequate, then you sound like you need a lesson on Blizzard. Blizzard software has (rightfully) earned a reputation for being some of the biggest perfectionists in the computer games industry. They routinely delay games and push back the releases because they want the game to be as perfect as possible before it's released. This approach has proven it's worth, though: Nearly every single Blizzard Software title released in the last decade has broken the "One Million Copies Sold" barrier, something that only happens to a precious few PC games. Their games have also met with high praise from both hardcore gamers and casual gamers, and the folks at Blizzard have won their share of "Game of the Year" awards.

I have no doubts that World of Warcraft will be a great game. I've been following it's progress very closely, and the more I hear about it, the more excited I am to play it. I've played a few MMORPGs before, but World of Warcraft is going to be the first one I plan on subscribing to.

 

[Ristamar]

If you're calling Blizzard software woefully inadequate, then you sound like you need a lesson on Blizzard. Blizzard software has (rightfully) earned a reputation for being some of the biggest perfectionists in the computer games industry. They routinely delay games and push back the releases because they want the game to be as perfect as possible before it's released. This approach has proven it's worth, though: Nearly every single Blizzard Software title released in the last decade has broken the "One Million Copies Sold" barrier, something that only happens to a precious few PC games. Their games have also met with high praise from both hardcore gamers and casual gamers, and the folks at Blizzard have won their share of "Game of the Year" awards.

"Somebody out there made a joke that Blizzard could put a brick in a box and label it “Brick, the Game” and it would sell a million copies to a million happy fans. Those fans would form fansites and delve into the gameplay, figuring out the best build orders or skill upgrade routes. It would be hailed a success and the best Brick players in the world could win $20,000 at monthly tournaments."​

The above quote (from a positive FiringSquad review of WC3) touches on how I feel about Blizzard, though my view is a bit more cynical. Their fans are usually more willing to overlook their mistakes simply because they're Blizzard, makers of WarCraft, WarCraft II, Diablo, and StarCraft, all of which were innovative and instant classics.

Lately though, I think Blizzard's been slipping, or perhaps they're simply just not as far ahead of the competition as they once were.

Take Diablo II, for instance. Why did Diablo II run at 640x480? Certain parts of that game were as ugly as sin, and for as long as it had been in development, it was rather ridiculous. Maybe they should've devoted a little less time on the cutscenes and more time on the engine.

And then there were the ridiculously unbalanced skill trees. They did internal playtesting and a beta run, it's not like they could have been absolutely clueless about the dominating power of Corpse Explosion or the Blood Golem/Iron Maiden combo or how underpowered the Poison based skills were for the Necromancer, let alone all the changes/problems with the other classes. Sure, they released patches, but how does that help if you've already placed loads of points into skills they've changed in the patch? Don't like how the skill works anymore? Tough, you're screwed, you have to keep it, that is unless you want kiss the official servers goodbye and be restricted to single player or playing with others who stay with patch release you like. Or just ditch the character and start all over again. Yay.

The hacking of the servers I can somewhat understand, as people will always find ways to cheat the system, but their server availability was disturbing. It was a chore to get on the official servers for weeks, as if they didn't know the game was going to be swamped with eager players.

Had any other click'n'slash fantasy scavenger hunt had these problems, it'd probably would've been crucified by fans and reviewers alike, but somehow D2 made it through the flames relatively unscathed.

Moving on to WarCraft 3. I can't comment extensively, as I admittedly haven't played it a lot, but I'll give a few thoughts. WarCraft III, IMO, is not a bad game, but I'd say it's slightly overrated. It doesn't really do anything that other RTS' hadn't done long before its release (3D engine, Hero units, etc.). Don't get me wrong, it does have polish and balance, but I believe it receives more attention than competing games in the genre that are as good, if not better, simply because of the Blizzard brand name...

...Which I suppose is the point of this little rant.

 

[tburdett]

What he said. In addition, several key Blizzard employees just left the company, and that is never good news.

 

[Dark Jezter]

The above quote (from a positive FiringSquad review of WC3) touches on how I feel about Blizzard, though my view is a bit more cynical. Their fans are usually more willing to overlook their mistakes simply because they're Blizzard, makers of WarCraft, WarCraft II, Diablo, and StarCraft, all of which were innovative and instant classics.

Actually, I've noticed that Blizzard's fans are usually less willing to ignore Blizzard's mistakes than the PC gaming population on a whole. I've hung around forums and chat channels devoted to Blizzard games, and have heard people screaming bloody murder about how overpowered the Night Elves were on WC3's initial release, or how the latest Diablo II patch "casterated" their level 85 barbarian.

Take Diablo II, for instance. Why did Diablo II run at 640x480? Certain parts of that game were as ugly as sin, and for as long as it had been in development, it was rather ridiculous. Maybe they should've devoted a little less time on the cutscenes and more time on the engine.

You do know that different teams work on the engine and the cinematics, right? Think a programmer would know his way around a 3-D rendering program? Perhaps we should let a cinematics artist start coding and see how well he does.

"Maybe they should've devoted a little less time on the cutscenes and more time on the engine" is a very simplistic and uninformed statement.

As for the resoultion issue, Blizzard has always tried to make their games playable by people on older computers. The expansion pack did add support for 800x600 mode, though.

And then there were the ridiculously unbalanced skill trees. They did internal playtesting and a beta run, it's not like they could have been absolutely clueless about the dominating power of Corpse Explosion or the Blood Golem/Iron Maiden combo or how underpowered the Poison based skills were for the Necromancer, let alone all the changes/problems with the other classes. Sure, they released patches, but how does that help if you've already placed loads of points into skills they've changed in the patch? Don't like how the skill works anymore? Tough, you're screwed, you have to keep it, that is unless you want kiss the official servers goodbye and be restricted to single player or playing with others who stay with patch release you like. Or just ditch the character and start all over again. Yay.

The hacking of the servers I can somewhat understand, as people will always find ways to cheat the system, but their server availability was disturbing. It was a chore to get on the official servers for weeks, as if they didn't know the game was going to be swamped with eager players.

Had any other click'n'slash fantasy scavenger hunt had these problems, it'd probably would've been crucified by fans and reviewers alike, but somehow D2 made it through the flames relatively unscathed.

No game is perfect, and likely no game ever will be. The thing with Diablo II, however, is that the good points far outweigh the bad ones. The game took everything that made the original Diablo great and improved upon it. It featured addictive, simple gameplay, breathtaking cinematics, five distinctly different characters to play as, and incredibly addictive multiplayer.

You also seem to be putting Blizzard in a no-win situation; If they patch the game to fix imbalances, you say that it's making characters obsolete and forcing people to start over. If they don't patch the game, then they're blatantly ignoring imbalanced classes.

I should also add that the 1.10 patch for Diablo II is in the works, and it will be adding enough new stuff that it's practically a free expansion pack. How many other game companies out there are supporting three-year-old games that aren't MMORPGs? If Blizzard were Electronic Arts or Sony, they'd only release occasional patches, and the most irritating bugs would be fixed in an expansion pack you'd have to pay for (or not be fixed at all).

Moving on to WarCraft 3. I can't comment extensively, as I admittedly haven't played it a lot, but I'll give a few thoughts. WarCraft III, IMO, is not a bad game, but I'd say it's slightly overrated. It doesn't really do anything that other RTS' hadn't done long before its release (3D engine, Hero units, etc.). Don't get me wrong, it does have polish and balance, but I believe it receives more attention than competing games in the genre that are as good, if not better, simply because of the Blizzard brand name...

...Which I suppose is the point of this little rant.

If you can name another real-time strategy game that's been released in the last couple of years that's as good as Warcraft III, I'd like to hear it. Age of Mythology, Command & Conquer Generals, and Rise of Nations were all fun games, but none of them managed to absolutely consume my life for months like WC3 did.

What he said. In addition, several key Blizzard employees just left the company, and that is never good news.

The employees who recently (even though it happened a few months ago) quit worked for Blizzard North, which could have an impact on any future Diablo titles that come out. However, it will not have any effect whatsoever on the Warcraft or Starcraft line of games.

 

[Ristamar]

Actually, I've noticed that Blizzard's fans are usually less willing to ignore Blizzard's mistakes than the PC gaming population on a whole. I've hung around forums and chat channels devoted to Blizzard games, and have heard people screaming bloody murder about how overpowered the Night Elves were on WC3's initial release, or how the latest Diablo II patch "casterated" their level 85 barbarian.

The hardcore fans hang out in forums and channels devoted to their game. Hardcore fans also cry and complain the loudest in said mediums. Hardcore fans are also the ones that keep coming back for more and more, despite their constant bemoaning. All of the above can be said of nearly any game that has a relatively sizable fanbase.

You do know that different teams work on the engine and the cinematics, right? Think a programmer would know his way around a 3-D rendering program? Perhaps we should let a cinematics artist start coding and see how well he does.

"Maybe they should've devoted a little less time on the cutscenes and more time on the engine" is a very simplistic and uninformed statement.

No, it's a critique of their use of resources. They were obviously on some sort of budget, just like any other game. It's not as if they couldn't have not hired (or simply removed) a few 3D rendering folk from the project to pay for a few extra programmers. Personally, I wouldn't sacrifice a prettier game engine that I'll be staring at for 40+ hours in favor of ultra-polished cinematics that I may watch for 10 or 15 minutes, but that's just me.

No game is perfect, and likely no game ever will be. The thing with Diablo II, however, is that the good points far outweigh the bad ones. The game took everything that made the original Diablo great and improved upon it. It featured addictive, simple gameplay, breathtaking cinematics, five distinctly different characters to play as, and incredibly addictive multiplayer.

I agree, the good points do outweigh the bad. However, I think the bad was often grossly overlooked or too easily forgiven.

You also seem to be putting Blizzard in a no-win situation; If they patch the game to fix imbalances, you say that it's making characters obsolete and forcing people to start over. If they don't patch the game, then they're blatantly ignoring imbalanced classes.

They put themselves in a tough spot. Yes, the imbalances needed fixing, but there shouldn't have been that many to begin with. Seriously, did they playtest some of this stuff? It's not like a lot of the big boosts/nerfs made in the early patches were addressing issues that were coming out of left field. Hell, the strategy guides which had hit the shelves before the game did were already pointing out what skills to intensely focus on because of the immense, unignorable advantages they gave your character.

Regardless, I think the fixes could've been handled better. No one likes it when spells and rules change that nerf their character mid-campaign while playing D&D, so the DM often lets PC's make a few adjustments should changes occur. Well, why not allow D2 players to redistribute a few skill points from skills that are being changed when they initially install the patch, then lock the changes in once they redistribute the points? I'm sure Blizzard could've come up with something, as they are talented folk.

I should also add that the 1.10 patch for Diablo II is in the works, and it will be adding enough new stuff that it's practically a free expansion pack. How many other game companies out there are supporting three-year-old games that aren't MMORPGs? If Blizzard were Electronic Arts or Sony, they'd only release occasional patches, and the most irritating bugs would be fixed in an expansion pack you'd have to pay for (or not be fixed at all).

They already released one retail expansion pack (which fixed some old problems and created others), and despite the game's continued popularity, I don't think a second would sell a lot of copies. I think it's great they're still working on getting it right and giving out material. I don't believe Blizzard is a bad company. I give them props for their continued support, but in my opinion, their launch and subsequent patchwork tweaking of Diablo 2 was uncharacteristically sloppy.

If you can name another real-time strategy game that's been released in the last couple of years that's as good as Warcraft III, I'd like to hear it. Age of Mythology, Command & Conquer Generals, and Rise of Nations were all fun games, but none of them managed to absolutely consume my life for months like WC3 did.

Your challenge is frivolous. Obviously it's highly unlikely I'll change your existing disposition about a video game you adore, let alone via a messageboard, especially when we're talking in terms of opinions. I would, however, add Total Annihilation, Sacrifice, and Kohan to your list of contenders.

 

[LightPhoenix]

At least they're banning known hackers instead of just letting them get away with it. Granted, some people are still getting away with it, but things like that will happen when you literally have tens of thousands of users playing Diablo II online every day. Perhaps it would be possible for them to hire more people to aggresively persue hackers on battle.net, but unless you want battle.net to become a pay service instead of a free service, I wouldn't count on it.

Alright, I'm not going to get into the critique of Blizzard at all. But I will counter this statement.

One of the HUGEST complaints by fans of Blizzard is that they don't do near enough to stop hackers. It wasn't until VERY recently that they actively persued hackers and banned accounts for Diablo II. If they had been doing this since day one, I think the realms would be a much better place to play. The EULA is very specific about what is and is not acceptable. If they do not enforce those terms, then that IS their problem and certainly a major flaw for a company whose forte is online play (a claim they have made themselves numerous times).