Diablo 3

[Wraitheist]

How many of you are anticipating this game as much as I am? I have probably put more hours into Diablo 2 than any other game. I ran across a new preview on 1UP that renewed my longing:

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3172030&p=1

[MagGnome]

It is New Year's, and you are talking about Diablo 3?

...............

[BLeeP]

It is New Year's, and you are talking about Diablo 3?

...............

Why not talk about anticipating Diablo 3 on New Year's?

We can make it an annual event ^_~.

[Wraitheist]

It is New Year's, and you are talking about Diablo 3?

...............

It IS a gaming forum...what would you have us talk about?

[MalReynolds]

Arnt we suppose to talk about game ?

[KingGorilla]

It IS a gaming forum...what would you have us talk about?

Breastfeeding or penises.

[Narradisall]

It's too far away for me to care, plus I still haven't gotten round to picking up a gaming rig yet.

When SC2 shifts I may be tempted to go splurge a bit of cash on a gaming laptopn or something (prefer desktops but don't have the space atm).

Might as well be asking if I'm excited for Duke Nukem Forever as the likilyhood of seeing D3 this year is slim.

[J Arcane]

Blizzard lost my respect with Burning Crusade, and then utterly buried it with Diablo III.

Diablo III is a sequel in name only, yet another cash-in on a big franchise name, the likes of which Activision and EA do all the time. It's not even the same developers really, though most people don't seem to realize this, they just see Blizzard and assume it's some great monolithic figure that can only produce a font of pure good.

[biosc1]

I'll buy it. I love point and click hack 'n slash games. I should be done with Titan Quest by the time Diablo 3 comes out. Never finished 2, but played the heck out of 1.

I truly believe Blizzard will hold off on it until it's a good game...they don't need to cash one in on Diablo 3 because that will hurt them in the long run. Of course, I'm not going to blindly accept that it will be the most fantastic game ever, but as long as it's just "good", I'm sure I'll get my enjoyment out of it.

[Wraitheist]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I have complete faith in Blizzard. D3 is already looking awesome and the team is made up of guys that are huge D2 followers. I really don't think they will under deliver on this one.

I know that most of the original team isn't at Bliz any more, but seeing what a lousy job Flagship did with Hellgate London has me unconcerned.

[Loki]

My faith in Blizzard is extremely high. I have no doubt that they will make Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 into the best games that they could possibly make; however, given that, I will not be buying Diablo 3. Not really all the interested.

[axion]

Blizzard lost my respect with Burning Crusade, and then utterly buried it with Diablo III.

Diablo III is a sequel in name only, yet another cash-in on a big franchise name, the likes of which Activision and EA do all the time. It's not even the same developers really, though most people don't seem to realize this, they just see Blizzard and assume it's some great monolithic figure that can only produce a font of pure good.

I'm glad you've traveled to the future and have ascertained this knowledge for us so we don't waste our time on the game. But maybe I'll, you know, wait for the game to actually be released to make judgments about it being a cash-in.

[Hemalin]

I'm glad you've traveled to the future and have ascertained this knowledge for us so we don't waste our time on the game. But maybe I'll, you know, wait for the game to actually be released to make judgments about it being a cash-in.
This game doesn't even have the original development team. Without the original team, this game could turn out like Hellgate: London. ;)

[squirrelTactics]

It can't be that bad if it held my interest throughout a 19-minute gameplay trailer...

[SilentScreams]

Blizzard have never made a bad game yet, and Diablo 2 with LoD still ranks as my favorite game of all time.
So to say I'm eagerly anticipating Diablo 3 is a massive understatement.
I'm saving 2 weeks of holiday from work for when it's released. That's the point I'm at.

Everything I've seen of the game so far has been amazing and they seem to be taking the game in the exact right direction. They are remaining faithful to the previous 2 games, while also moving the series forward in terms of graphics and interface as well as minor gameplay tweaks.

[maharahaj]

Blizzard lost my respect with Burning Crusade, and then utterly buried it with Diablo III.

Diablo III is a sequel in name only, yet another cash-in on a big franchise name, the likes of which Activision and EA do all the time. It's not even the same developers really, though most people don't seem to realize this, they just see Blizzard and assume it's some great monolithic figure that can only produce a font of pure good.

I'll hold my opinion on the game until it is released. I am hoping though that it is beyond awesome.

[J Arcane]

I'm glad you've traveled to the future and have ascertained this knowledge for us so we don't waste our time on the game. But maybe I'll, you know, wait for the game to actually be released to make judgments about it being a cash-in.
Thanks for the utterly useless response.

If all you're going to say is basically "I don't want to discuss the topic in any real way whatsoever but I still want to feel superior to someone else", then maybe next time it's best just keeping it to yourself, eh?

Blizzard have never made a bad game yet

Yes, they have. Two, in fact. One was called Burning Crusade, an expansion pack that managed to singlehandedly turn back the clock on every improvement they had made over the past several years to the way MMOs were made and played.

THe other was called Starcraft, an overrated remake of Warcraft II with the Warhammer Fantasy copypasta replaces with 40k copypasta, and a lot of convoluted nonsense tacked on.

[Disgustipated]

I'm glad you've traveled to the future and have ascertained this knowledge for us so we don't waste our time on the game. But maybe I'll, you know, wait for the game to actually be released to make judgments about it being a cash-in.

100% agreed. Douche Arcane is doing his typical tinfoil hat bullshit and speaking out of his ass. Can it until the game is released.

[pheriannath]

While I have my doubts that the current-day Blizzard will turn out what the most hardcore Diablo 2 fans want, I still think this will be a solid clickfest. My biggest worry is actually that the game feels like something out of 1999 instead of a more modern action-RPG.

Dave Brevik and Bill Roper (and Blizzard North) may not be involved, but I think HGL showed us that may not matter so much.

[violent]

This game doesn't even have the original development team. Without the original team, this game could turn out like Hellgate: London. ;)

The game could also be so amazing that it will render you sterile within 5 minutes of playing. Who the fuck knows? No one in here that's for certain.

[Disgustipated]

The game could also be so amazing that it will render you sterile within 5 minutes of playing. Who the fuck knows? No one in here that's for certain.

Whatever ass-face, we both know J Arcane knows for certain. :D

[KingGorilla]

I have yet to play a Diablo that was made by Blizzard that disappointed . Hellfire and Diablo on PS1 not so great.

[BLeeP]

I have yet to play a Diablo that was made by Blizzard that disappointed . Hellfire and Diablo on PS1 not so great.

Good lord I played so much Diablo for the PS1. One of my all time favorite games, that's for sure ^_^.

[J Arcane]

Good lord I played so much Diablo for the PS1. One of my all time favorite games, that's for sure ^_^.
I loved it. Somehow the trade out for controller instead of mouse clcks made the game feel more interactive.

In fact, I was never able to get into Diablo until I played it on PS1, because the mouse interface always seemed to get in the way. It still bugs me to this day.

[tombofsoldier]

Good lord I played so much Diablo for the PS1. One of my all time favorite games, that's for sure ^_^.

I didn't even know Diablo was on the PS1. But then I've actually played Starcraft on the 64. Damn that was weird.

[BLeeP]

I loved it. Somehow the trade out for controller instead of mouse clcks made the game feel more interactive.

In fact, I was never able to get into Diablo until I played it on PS1, because the mouse interface always seemed to get in the way. It still bugs me to this day.

The two player mode also made it extremely easy to dupe gold. I'm just saying.

My guy had an awesome set of Zodiac armor. In a way, I always liked Diablo more than Diablo II. I think I enjoyed the simple dungeon diving more than the globe hopping.

[J Arcane]

I didn't even know Diablo was on the PS1. But then I've actually played Starcraft on the 64. Damn that was weird.
Yup. THey also did Warcraft II for PS1 as well, which was quite a good port as well. Using the control pad instead of a mouse was a bit of a pain, but I loved the building queues they added. In fact, it took until Supreme Commander for another dev to come along and put in a similarly powerful queueing system.

[BLeeP]

I never played the Warcraft II port (it's about as rare as the Diablo and Starcraft 64 ports), but I own Starcraft 64. Never played it, though. I hear it's not bad until you try to do split-screen, and then you are met with slowdown (and letting your opponent see all of your moves). I prefer turn based strategy games 8-P.

[Wraitheist]

Thanks for the utterly useless response.

If all you're going to say is basically "I don't want to discuss the topic in any real way whatsoever but I still want to feel superior to someone else", then maybe next time it's best just keeping it to yourself, eh?



Yes, they have. Two, in fact. One was called Burning Crusade, an expansion pack that managed to singlehandedly turn back the clock on every improvement they had made over the past several years to the way MMOs were made and played.

THe other was called Starcraft, an overrated remake of Warcraft II with the Warhammer Fantasy copypasta replaces with 40k copypasta, and a lot of convoluted nonsense tacked on.


I think you would be in the overwhelming minority here. Many consider Starcraft to be the greatest RTS of all time. It is still played by a lot of people. As for BC, I think most people would disagree with you there, as well, considering the number of subscribers WoW still has.

[squirrelTactics]

THe other was called Starcraft, an overrated remake of Warcraft II with the Warhammer Fantasy copypasta replaces with 40k copypasta, and a lot of convoluted nonsense tacked on.


I think there would be entire countries who disagree with you on this one.

[J Arcane]

I think you would be in the overwhelming minority here. Many consider Starcraft to be the greatest RTS of all time. It is still played by a lot of people. As for BC, I think most people would disagree with you there, as well, considering the number of subscribers WoW still has.
The thing with MMOs is, you only have to start out good, you don't have to stay good for the whole game.

It takes 60 levels for WoW to fall apart, that's a hell of a lot of subscription money in the meantime. And by then, most of them are going to stick with it regardless and eat it up with a spoon.

And let's face it, anything with a level grind is instant gravy no matter who makes it. Final Fantasy, Pokemon, Lineage.

[Talon]

Diablo III is a sequel in name only, yet another cash-in on a big franchise name, the likes of which Activision and EA do all the time. It's not even the same developers really, though most people don't seem to realize this, they just see Blizzard and assume it's some great monolithic figure that can only produce a font of pure good.

I realize that Blizzard North doesn't exist anymore both in name and personnel with the Schaefers and Mr. Brevik gone a while ago.

I would be concerned if it weren't for the fact that Blizzard has plenty of talent all around, and they put an ex-Relic guy in charge of the project. Give these guys a chance before you shit all over them, son. Blizzard hasn't put out a bad game in the past decade, and I don't see them doing it now.

Also, I'm tired of the sour grapes about Blizzard cribbing the Warhammer material. I suppose it is shitty (and annoying when those ignorant complain about Warhammer games), but it sounds like Games Workshop has nobody to blame but itself. I thought the original story was that Blizzard designed WarCraft while intending it to carry the Warhammer license. Games Workshop dropped the ball (twice, even), and WarCraft carried on and was released with the heavily-derivative IP (as little as I know about the board game world).

[Grifter]

100% agreed. Douche Arcane is doing his typical tinfoil hat bullshit and speaking out of his ass. Can it until the game is released.

He's totally telling the truth, while I was stalking him the other night I got close enough to see in his window and he has this huge sand filled pussy in his living room that can tell the future and it said Diablo 3 is totally going to suck.

[violent]

He's totally telling the truth, while I was stalking him the other night I got close enough to see in his window and he has this huge sand filled pussy in his living room that can tell the future and it said Diablo 3 is totally going to suck.

Now that's a funny image.

[Pale Ale]

I think you would be in the overwhelming minority here. Many consider Starcraft to be the greatest RTS of all time. It is still played by a lot of people. As for BC, I think most people would disagree with you there, as well, considering the number of subscribers WoW still has.

I'll stand with J Arcane. I think Starcaft is boring and derivative. It boggles my mind that tripe is so friggin' popular.


As for Diablo 3, I strongly suspect it will be like injecting nostalgia directly into you carotid artery and slamming your dick in a door. Except I don't trust Blizzard with it comes to making the nostalgia, so I might as well save myself 50 bucks and just lay my cock in the door frame on the release date.

[Grifter]

I'll stand with J Arcane. I think Starcaft is boring and derivative. It boggles my mind that tripe is so friggin' popular.

I don't like Starcraft either but that in no way makes it a bad game.

As for Diablo 3, I strongly suspect it will be like injecting nostalgia directly into you carotid artery and slamming your dick in a door. Except I don't trust Blizzard with it comes to making the nostalgia, so I might as well save myself 50 bucks and just lay my cock in the door frame on the release date.

What exactly are you basing this opinion on?

[Harv]

Starcraft was awesome and is the best selling RTS of all time and remains one of the best selling PC titles of all time and despite it being over ten years old it is still played by thousands all over the world. There are very few PC games that can claim that. Anyone still playing Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun? That came out in 1999.

Derivative? Who cares. It did it better than all the rest and that's what matters.

Diablo III will be better than Diablo II in every way possible. After watching the preview video they put out I'm ready for this right now. Unfortunately, it will likely be another year or more before it sees the light of day.

[RandoM51]

Blizzard lost my respect with Burning Crusade, and then utterly buried it with Diablo III.


Umm, lol. You don't agree with some decisions they may have made with a couple products and suddenly they lose your respect. Must be easy to just forget every bit of entertainment you've ever gotten from a Blizzard game.

[Narradisall]

I just hope they make it a bit less cheat filled than D2.

God that got annoying after a awhile. Still was a fun game. Being a more RTS fan I'm more in the SC2 mood. Always liked the story (like WH40k stories too) and the player maps people put out are often like games in themselfs. Always value for money!

[Deunnero]

The gf and I will be setting up an actual game-room for just this game. :D

[Goronmon]

I've enjoyed every title Blizzard has released up until now. They really outdid themselves with the Lich King expansion, so I'm fairly hopeful that they'll be able to produce some good times with Diablo 3.

[sparkfizt]

Burning crusade was pretty excellent. It got rid of the old honor system, introduced arenas and heroic 5 man dungeons. Badge based loot rather than praying to the RNG gods. A new battle ground, along with AV eventually being re-worked yet again. The only thing that really fell flat to me was the story, but Wotlk has shown that they're interested in bringing story to the front.

Starcraft... well no starcraft was'nt innovative, but never has there been such a well balanced RTS. It's always impressive to watch professional matches and see just how fully they use every unit's capabilities.

People can place too much emphasis on a single game creator. Much of the diablo team ran off to make hellgate london, which was one of the fastest implosions of a game studio i'd ever seen. The product was just plain lousy and there was no patching it together. Blizzard has something going for it that a lot of studios dont have, and that's a war chest of monies. They're not afraid to keep iterating on a game until it's fun, or killing a title that they feel doesnt live up to the blizzard reputation. Hellgate london could of been fun but it needed atleast a year longer in the oven.

Blizzard doesnt innovate hugely, but generally they polish a game till it shines. And more than anything, a well polished game stands out in the crowd.

[KingGorilla]

Don' get me started on Starcraft' balance, Blizzards ability to balance for competition in general. I will just say, not one of their or Star Craft's strengths, which seems to be a big appeal for competitive layers. But suffice to say, a title where you can fuck up(not know it) and be unable to recover when it is apparent 20 minutes later is not well balanced. Each patch and set of fixes just closed some to create new ones, Mine spamming was the horrid tactic du jur for a fair time. Ok I guess I went there.

Don"t go into a Blizzard title expecting competive balance is my cliff note.

[sparkfizt]

Don' get me started on Starcraft' balance, Blizzards ability to balance for competition in general. I will just say, not one of their or Star Craft's strengths, which seems to be a big appeal for competitive layers. But suffice to say, a title where you can fuck up(not know it) and be unable to recover when it is apparent 20 minutes later is not well balanced. Each patch and set of fixes just closed some to create new ones, Mine spamming was the horrid tactic du jur for a fair time. Ok I guess I went there.

Don"t go into a Blizzard title expecting competive balance is my cliff note.

fuck up how? running up the wrong tech tree? Much of starcraft is about countering what your opponent is doing. If one player has an information advantage via scouting, then he may be able to turn that into a real advantage by pumping out a unit that counters yours.

Its just surprising to me how complex starcraft can be, while having 3 asymmetric sides. Most of the time each race has a counter for what another race is doing.

[SonofSeth]

Everything I saw and read about D3 makes me believe it will be much better than previous Diablos.

I like the new art style better, combat seems more intuitive and responsive, classes look fun, barbarian finally looks like a skin bag of condensed awesome ready to burst, wizard has death ray and witch doctor looks like he's tripping on acid, good stuff all around.

Regardless of that, I have yet to be disappointed by Blizzard.

[Narradisall]

Don' get me started on Starcraft' balance, Blizzards ability to balance for competition in general. I will just say, not one of their or Star Craft's strengths, which seems to be a big appeal for competitive layers. But suffice to say, a title where you can fuck up(not know it) and be unable to recover when it is apparent 20 minutes later is not well balanced. Each patch and set of fixes just closed some to create new ones, Mine spamming was the horrid tactic du jur for a fair time. Ok I guess I went there.

Don"t go into a Blizzard title expecting competive balance is my cliff note.

I always thought SC was praised for being one of the best balanced games.

Hell, in most current RTS's you could spam one unit faster than the other guy and win. One of the great things about DoW was it handled the micro very well (the overal race balance needed some tuning).

I wasn't really hugely into the PvP MP on SC though, much more enjoyment on the player maps people churned out.

Still, when I did play it I liked that you often had to mix units to counter effectively, micro and constantly tweak your strategy.

I would imagine the 'one fuck up' = death would likely crop up often if your playing higher teired players, but then that could be said for almost any game.

[Wraitheist]

Back on track...

I am really glad that they are going with the loot system where each player only sees his/her loot drop. I played a ton of D2 on B.net, but rarely with other people as getting drops was nigh impossible. Looks like this will fix all of that. Didn't Hellgate London implement something like this? If so, they had some decent ideas.

[SilentScreams]

Back on track...

I am really glad that they are going with the loot system where each player only sees his/her loot drop. I played a ton of D2 on B.net, but rarely with other people as getting drops was nigh impossible. Looks like this will fix all of that. Didn't Hellgate London implement something like this? If so, they had some decent ideas.

Yeah Hellgate did it. It's a good idea. Competing over loot in the way that Diablo 2 handles it just isn't a fair way of doing it, as the melee classes will more often than not get the gear, as they are nearer when it drops.

I'm probably alone in this, but I really hope they start charging for b.net. It will make it much more stable, cheat free and would keep new content coming.
Imagine Diablo 2 with a never ending stream of new content. I'd still be playing that today.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Breastfeeding or penises.

Or breastfeeding penises.

[J Arcane]

Umm, lol. You don't agree with some decisions they may have made with a couple products and suddenly they lose your respect. Must be easy to just forget every bit of entertainment you've ever gotten from a Blizzard game.

Times change, so do developers. Staff leaves, management shifts, studio jumps in the sack with the wrong publisher, or they just smell the easy gravy train and stop caring about anything else.

Blindly following a company's titles solely on name is stupidly naive, and serves only to prop up studios long after they've lost their edge.

Remember that even EA and Activision both started out in the industry as companiesw known for their creativity and high quality game titles. Bioware went from legendary PC developer to Jade Empire in less than ten years.

Or look at some of the recent studio closures. Factor 5 went from being one of the best developers of the Amiga era, to making killer console flight games, to making Lair. Free Radical hd the team that made two of the greatest console FPS games of all time, then went off on their own and made a t least one more, before wandering off the path wand making yet another boring generic "next gen" shooter.

Now to me, seeing the way the industry tends to go, once I start seeing that fall, I start getting more and more skeptical every time I see that name on the box. A good game is a good game, but I'm not just going to buy a game because it says "Blizzard" on it, which is exactly what some people seem to be saying whenever Blizz comes up.

They're a dev studio like any other, and they can, and probably will, fall flat on their face sooner or later. I happen to think they already have.

[Goronmon]

They're a dev studio like any other, and they can, and probably will, fall flat on their face sooner or later. I happen to think they already have.Yeah, but how is this logic useful? Blizzard has put out solid games in the past, so there is a better chance they will put out solid games in the future than a company who hasn't developed anything or another who has only put out below average work.

[Disgustipated]

He's totally telling the truth, while I was stalking him the other night I got close enough to see in his window and he has this huge sand filled pussy in his living room that can tell the future and it said Diablo 3 is totally going to suck.

Oh man, I just lol'd for a good 5 mins. Good show, Grifter. Sigged!

[Hemalin]

What exactly are you basing this opinion on?
Rainbows, of course.
http://www.shacknews.com/images/image-o-matic.x?/images/sshots/Screenshot/10162/10162_486bd08bda907.jpg

[Grifter]

Rainbows, of course.
http://www.shacknews.com/images/image-o-matic.x?/images/sshots/Screenshot/10162/10162_486bd08bda907.jpg

Should have known.

[Telefrog]

I'm probably alone in this, but I really hope they start charging for b.net. It will make it much more stable, cheat free and would keep new content coming.
Imagine Diablo 2 with a never ending stream of new content. I'd still be playing that today.

Yeah. I think you are alone in that one.

I, for one, never want to pay for an ongoing Diablo III subscription. I think Hellgate slammed the door shut on that one for a good long while.

[KingGorilla]

The current plan is ad support for Battle.Net for Diablo and Starcraft. I think we can also expect more than just one expansion as well. I would not be at all surprised if they take a look at Arena Net(ex Blizzard folks) and think about expandalone character or story packs. One new class a year, one new chapter, could prove interresting. Maybe go episodic with Diablo.

[Crowe]

That 1up interview has me pumped even more. I can't wait.

[J Arcane]

The current plan is ad support for Battle.Net for Diablo and Starcraft. I think we can also expect more than just one expansion as well. I would not be at all surprised if they take a look at Arena Net(ex Blizzard folks) and think about expandalone character or story packs. One new class a year, one new chapter, could prove interresting. Maybe go episodic with Diablo.
ACtually, I'd say these are pretty much certain, given what they've already said. They've hinted at going episodic with Diablo, and then of course there's the whole "selling each campaign seperately" thing for SC2.

Yet more prime evidence they've simply become addicted to the MMO gravy train, and you can damn sure bet they'll be doing everything they can to ensure future releases live up to those numbers as much as possible. And if they don't, they'll be on thin ice.

[KingGorilla]

The cost of maintennance, just on server space, has gone up so much in the last ten years. Anyone with an eye on ongoing, possible a decade, support needs to have a replenishing revenue model. Blizzard had to shut down Diablo 1 because the cost to keep it going, servers and support, was just too great. And on the flip side there are people who played StarCraft for a decade with a single expansion. Ongoing content support is something Blizzard has to be better with as well. People talk as if Blizzard's subscription fees go straight to their pockets, but these are servers that are several hundreds of missions of dollars to run. The bandwidth costs alone are staggering to imagine.

[J Arcane]

And yet despite those staggering costs they've become the biggest developer/publisher in the business. Somehow I think they'll manage to pull in plenty of profit one way or another, the question is whether those profits will be enough for their executives and shareholders, when the bar is set at 150 million a month in WoW sub fees.

[ShivaX]

ACtually, I'd say these are pretty much certain, given what they've already said. They've hinted at going episodic with Diablo, and then of course there's the whole "selling each campaign seperately" thing for SC2.

Yet more prime evidence they've simply become addicted to the MMO gravy train, and you can damn sure bet they'll be doing everything they can to ensure future releases live up to those numbers as much as possible. And if they don't, they'll be on thin ice.

I'll agree with you to an extent on this, though I generally disagree on other things. I don't like where their marketing and planning seems to be headed.

That said, Diablo 3 looks like it will be really good. I wasn't a huge fan of BC and I haven't really looked at WotLK (and I have like months of time played on my character).

I don't like what I've heard of the broken-up campaign of SC2, but I honestly don't think it will be that great anyway. I honestly believe that Relic has buried the old style RTS's for me forever. If I'm mining crap, gathering wood and pumping out as many units as I can, odds are I don't want to play it anymore. CoH was quite simply the pinnacle of RTS for me. I could win a battle by using (god forbid) strategy and tactics. If my opponent has a Panther rolling around, I can beat it by outplaying him with micro or with macro. I can flank him with AT guns or my own armor, or use mines or even bazooka equipped infantry. So many options that just stem from knowing what units do and how to use them, instead of memorizing the perfect build order and pumping out as many tanks/marines/whatever as humanly possible in X amount of time to win.

I got long-winded, but I like how Diablo3 looks and I think it will be pretty cool. The Wizard's time slowing ability shows a whole world of possibilites for doing cool stuff that is outside the box for the genre. Toss in a hint of the DoW guys with their cool death animations and whatnot and it has a lot of potential. I'm not saying its automatically awesome because Blizzard is making it, I'm saying its looking pretty awesome because of what I've seen and Blizzard happens to make it.

[J Arcane]

I'll agree with you to an extent on this, though I generally disagree on other things. I don't like where their marketing and planning seems to be headed.

In all fairness to Blizzard, that's just how the corporate world works. The duty of a corporation is towards ever increasing stock prices, or at least, to keep them from going down, and when the bar's as high as it is now for Blizzard, it's going to take a lot of tricks to keep up with those expectations, tricks their newfound friends at Activision already know quite well.

[OrangePulp]

And yet despite those staggering costs they've become the biggest developer/publisher in the business. Somehow I think they'll manage to pull in plenty of profit one way or another, the question is whether those profits will be enough for their executives and shareholders, when the bar is set at 150 million a month in WoW sub fees.

Edit: think I mixed that point up. Maybe I'll rewrite it later. I'll leave in the rest of the post.

And for your talk about blindly following companies earlier, well, two things:

One, for most of us here, Blizzard hasn't been a disappointment with any of their latest releases (as opposed to your case, apparently), so expecting them to make more good games is only logical, considering their track record.

Two, the thing about Blizzard that hasn't seemed to change regardless of how people shift around, is their dedication to making sure a game is really done, as was pointed out earlier. There would be a lot more AAA games if more studios could push back a game's release date "until it's done". And especially with the profits they pull off WoW, it's not like they're going to run out of money.

[BlackPete]

To those who say SC is a shitty unbalanced game: Korea would like to have a word with you.

[ShivaX]

To those who say SC is a shitty unbalanced game: Korea would like to have a word with you.

Yeah but people in Korea like some really stupid shit, so thats not much of a defense.

[KingGorilla]

To those who say SC is a shitty unbalanced game: Korea would like to have a word with you.

Balance has nothing to do with popularity, or even competitive play. I don't think Dice would be pounding that drum over Battlefield. Or tournament Virtua Fighter and Street Fighter players. Tournament play is about exploiting those imbalances. Most people love the aforementioned games because of the imbalances, I do not.

[SonofSeth]

Balance has nothing to do with popularity, or even competitive play. I don't think Dice would be pounding that drum over Battlefield. Or tournament Virtua Fighter and Street Fighter players. Tournament play is about exploiting those imbalances. Most people love the aforementioned games because of the imbalances, I do not.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

[Disgustipated]

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

That's what he usually does, nothing new to see here.

[SonofSeth]

That's what he usually does, nothing new to see here.

I'm new here so i still have to learn behavioral patterns of local wild life.