|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Poll: Is Blizzard Entertainment the best it can be
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: s[z_REDNECK
Is Bizzard Entertainment as good as it can be? Why? Which is BETTER d2 or SC? Why? Please post answers i wanna see if sc is more popular that d2 or other way around.
And my answers are:
Blizzard needs to put out more games faster. It is probably the best gaming company in the world. I could be wrong correct me if i am.
D2 is better single player but its open bnet is way to hacked up. closed bnet for dd2 is great especially because you cant use yur single playes chars in it. (no hacks). SC has no point to single player except for practice or testing out home-made maps. Its multiplayer is definately better than open bnt for d2. but not as good as closed for d2 beause there are still some hacks for SC. SCBW is a huge improvement for SC. Gives the game more speciallized unitss ect.... Please give me some feed-back. PEACE OUT!!!! Still need help on lag problem.
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
I think Blizzard is fine; all of their games are top-notch and are fun to play. I don't know if it's "as good as it can be" or not, but they're making great games, doing well for themselves and run the best free online gaming service around.
I believe that the question of which of those games is "better" is purely a matter of taste. I prefer Starcraft over Diablo II, because Starcraft requires more thought and doesn't become as monotonous. Diablo II is fun and I have enjoyed it, but I haven't gotten into it as much as I have gotten into Starcraft and Warcraft III.
I disagree that Blizzard needs to put out more games faster, because if they try to do that, most likely the games won't be as high-quality. I doubt that Blizzard needs to increase sales right away and pump out more titles.
Blizzard is certainly among the best gaming companies in the world, but I wouldn't say that it's *the* best. When it comes to your statement, I don't think it's right or wrong, I think it's just a matter of opinion. I'm sure you'll find many people who think Blizzard is the best, people who have Blizzard in their "top ten" developer list and people who will never buy another Blizzard product again for whatever reason.
EDIT:
Meant to say "top ten" developer list.
Posted by: s[z_REDNECK
Very insiteful
I agree Starcraft is better than diablo in most ways. Again as you said "matter of taste". It does require more thought and has a better multiplayer mode (my opinion). Do you have a PS2 and if so are you looking forward to the realease of Starcraft Ghost in 2004. I sure am. The game is supposed to take the strategy aspects of Starcraft and Starcraft Brood War, and take the concepts down to the level of the individual soldier. Do you know anything about when or if they are going to release Starcraft 2. I went to Blizzard.com and they said that they hadn't started developement or had a developement timeline. I wish disagree with you about how fast they put out their games. Yes, they do need to take time and make sure they're "top-notch" and all, But Starcraft Ghost was set for release in December, 2003. They pushed back the release date on it and now they don'y even have a new one set. I have seen a trailor of it nd i think it will be best console game of the year. No matter when they release it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starcraft
Best Game of the year
1997-1998 Award Year
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
Yes, I do have a PS2, and I do look forward to Starcraft: Ghost. I have a Gamecube as well, so I'll probably be getting the game for that console.
Starcraft 2 hasn't been announced yet, and most likely anything you hear about it is a bunch of BS. I believe that Starcraft 2 is inevitable, and we all have to be patient and wait for it to be officially announced.
Blizzard can take as long as they want to develop Starcraft: Ghost, as I expect it to be a game that I will have no regrets playing through once and then most likely not playing it again (maybe unless it has a multiplayer option). Also, the people who have played Blizzard's PC games and only play PC games need a very good reason to buy a console for one game. 
Posted by: SwizzleStick
 Quote:
Originally posted by NegotiatorSmith
I disagree that Blizzard needs to put out more games faster, because if they try to do that, most likely the games won't be as high-quality.
|
Posted by: ptomic
Will you be making StarCraft II?
We have not announced any current plans for StarCraft II. We are all very close to the worlds and characters we created in the original game and the expansion set and while we do intend to revisit that universe, we have no plans to do so at this time
Why does Blizzard Miss Release Dates?
Blizzard sets "release windows" to let people know when we expect a game to be finished. However, our goal at Blizzard is to not release a game until it's ready. While we could release a lower quality product to meet a specific date, we instead choose to work on a game until it meets the high standards that we know Blizzard fans and our development teams demand. When you see release windows coming from Blizzard, keep in mind they will be updated as time goes on -- at first being very vague and becoming more specific as the game nears completion. When you see release dates from other sources, keep in mind that those are simply guesses as to when we will be finished and are also in no way a concrete release date. We encourage you to check the official Blizzard.com website for updates regarding release dates.
-From Blizzard FAQ
Posted by: Ack1027
Lolz, I'm not going to boast, but I GURAN-DAMN-TEE I am the biggest and most avid Starcraft fan on this forum. I've been playing since I was 9 and the very first day it came out here in the U.S 6 years I've been playing, it's 6th birthday was this past March 31st I believe.
I've played the Diablo series EXTENSIVELY as well, and though I believe they are two entirely different games, Starcraft is better. Diablo can get boring. Starcraft, from my experience of SIX years, has yet to get boring. It is quite possibly the greatest game ever made. I don't know if you know but there are progamers in Korea who get money for playing starcraft and some can actually live off the money they get. Korea is the best place for gaming and Starcraft has dominated there more than any other game has, is now, or ever will.
And lastly, I disagree with you Negotiator. I believe that Starcraft 2 will never be made. I do have the anticipation [ I don't believe in hope ] that they will make something else. Like an expansion. The reason I think they won't make SC2 is because, the original developers for starcraft have left Blizzard and made a new company all their own. Secondly, I know Blizzard is ****ing up lately and I don't like them much but they aren't morons. They KNOW it's not possible to make another game like Starcraft more or less make a sequel to that game.
They ACCIDENTALLY did the unthinkable to create the perfect balance that Starcraft has. It is quite nearly impossible to ' make ' that balance again.
Btw, You should do Diablo 2 LOD vs Broodwar Poll to make it more specific.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
Quote:
|
Secondly, I know Blizzard is ****ing up lately
|
Umm... why do you say that? I don't see any signs that Blizzard is "****ing up". As a company they might not be at the same level of success that they were before, but they're still going strong and make solid games.
Posted by: Ocean
i want a prettier starcraft with a higher map limit on units. the game play can stay the same though.
Posted by: Ack1027
Quote:
Originally posted by NegotiatorSmith
Umm... why do you say that? I don't see any signs that Blizzard is "****ing up". As a company they might not be at the same level of success that they were before, but they're still going strong and make solid games.
|
I say that they are ****ing up lately because they are not still going strong. They are going weaker and not making solid games.
For example: They are going well enough because they are a high caliber company but when's the last time you've seen them make a SUCCESFUL patch that was accepted by the community? And when's the last time you heard of them respond to emails of customers who paid money to purchase their games? Also, Blizzard has listed on it's site and has claimed that it's QA or Quality Assurance makes sure it's games are high quality before they are finally released. But is it quality? Hell no, I know people who play the game on a regular basis who are 10x more qualified than the people there who ' Assure ' it's quality. Not only this, But Blizzard doesn't even take the time to take in evidence of hackers and disable them individually. All they've done in the past 2 years or so is disable thousands of accounts that just sat on ladder and looked pretty anyway. If they REALLY wanted to clean up ladder, one of their employees would sign on right now and look at what's going on. Someone I know has a plaque from 98 when he won #3 on ladder. Now that is not possible.
I don't know about you, but I and the many starcraft fan sites/forums I visit, the VAST majority say that the latest patch is a piece of shit. If anything, switching back to 1.09 would be better.
Also Warcraft 3 TFT is a great game but not something I'd expect from Blizzard. Warcraft 2 on the other hand was something monumental and extraordinary. Warcraft 3 runs on a very laboringly slow engine and the gameplay either concentrates entirely on macro or micro, not both at once. And also the food limit is ridiculous.
They obviously did not make Warcraft 3 TFT a solid game if at ANY time you log on to starcraft and compare the amount of users on b.net to the ones on warcraft the numbers are usually 1/5 of that. Warcraft is recent, Starcraft is 6 years old, if Blizzard is so strong, then why is Warcraft slugging along?
Like I said earlier, I know it's near damn impossible, if not entirely unattainable to make something like Starcraft again, and I Blizzard has lost many of it's TOP employees.
I have yet to see Starcraft:Ghost, so I won't talk about it yet but, Blizzard is a company who made TWO warcraft games after broodwar, then LOD, and now SC:Ghost will be released. Is this fair? Even with them KNOWING that the biggest community and money is with Starcraft?
Those are a few reasons why I think Blizzard is ****ing up and it's golden years are behind them.
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
Quote:
|
They are going well enough because they are a high caliber company but when's the last time you've seen them make a SUCCESFUL patch that was accepted by the community?
|
Quote:
|
I don't know about you, but I and the many starcraft fan sites/forums I visit, the VAST majority say that the latest patch is a piece of shit. If anything, switching back to 1.09 would be better.
|
On the Battle.net forums, I saw many people who were thrilled with Diablo II 1.10 and the changes it brought. I did see many people who were upset with Warcraft III 1.13, though. Regardless of the opinions I saw on those forums, I kept in mind that the people who post on them represent a very small percentage of the total Battle.net population. I don't think most Battle.net players even know about those forums. Fan site forums and such also represent another small percentage of the total population as well. The complaints that you see about something Blizzard-related on a webforum don't represent the views of the Battle.net population as a whole.
About the Starcraft patch... how did it make Starcraft so bad that Blizzard should go back to patch 1.09? My change log indicates that all patch 1.10 did was fix two bugs; are you saying that the game has become a "piece of shit" bug-wise and technical problem-wise?
Quote:
|
And when's the last time you heard of them respond to emails of customers who paid money to purchase their games?
|
Umm... they DO respond to e-mails, as long as they're not something like "OMFG BLIZZ U SCREWED UP D2 WITH 1.10!1!11!11". The Blizzard support team gets lots and lots of e-mail each day, but they just don't respond to them right away. I'm actually assuming that you're referring to tech support e-mails... e-mails to Blizzard that are just general complaints about their games or suggestion e-mails are probably almost always ignored.
Quote:
|
Also, Blizzard has listed on it's site and has claimed that it's QA or Quality Assurance makes sure it's games are high quality before they are finally released. But is it quality? Hell no, I know people who play the game on a regular basis who are 10x more qualified than the people there who ' Assure ' it's quality.
|
Umm... all of Blizzard's games are high quality whether you realize it or not. Now for those who have extremely high standards and live, eat and breathe the games, yes, they might be inclined to say that the games are pure crap. However, those people are just really picky and don't appreciate a Blizzard game for what it is. No game is perfect, and Blizzard isn't perfect either. Any casual gamer who has played games developed by other companies knows that Blizzard's games are the best of the best and that they could be much worse.
Quote:
|
Not only this, But Blizzard doesn't even take the time to take in evidence of hackers and disable them individually. All they've done in the past 2 years or so is disable thousands of accounts that just sat on ladder and looked pretty anyway. If they REALLY wanted to clean up ladder, one of their employees would sign on right now and look at what's going on. Someone I know has a plaque from 98 when he won #3 on ladder. Now that is not possible.
|
Blizzard does ban hackers pretty often, but they can't do it all the time. Plus, for every person at Blizzard who is trying to make Battle.net as hack-free of a place as possible, there are many other people who are attempting to do the opposite. It is impossible to make Battle.net hack-free, and unfortunately it is a bit hard to stop the hacks since the Battle.net population is so large and Blizzard can only do so much. The Starcraft ladder situation has been pretty ridiculous at times, but you can still have fun on Battle.net without trying to get #3 on the ladder.
Quote:
|
Also Warcraft 3 TFT is a great game but not something I'd expect from Blizzard. Warcraft 2 on the other hand was something monumental and extraordinary. Warcraft 3 runs on a very laboringly slow engine and the gameplay either concentrates entirely on macro or micro, not both at once. And also the food limit is ridiculous.
|
Well, all I can say is that Warcraft III was not meant to be a sequel to Starcraft that plays just like it, and people who enjoy Starcraft might not enjoy Warcraft III. I think it's a wonderful game, even if there is a heavy focus on macro. The food limit is smaller because of that focus on macro and managing a small army, and since the game is much more system-intensive than Starcraft is, there are technical considerations as well.
Quote:
|
They obviously did not make Warcraft 3 TFT a solid game if at ANY time you log on to starcraft and compare the amount of users on b.net to the ones on warcraft the numbers are usually 1/5 of that. Warcraft is recent, Starcraft is 6 years old, if Blizzard is so strong, then why is Warcraft slugging along?
|
The number of users on Starcraft is greater because the game has been out much longer and has had much more time to mature, and Starcraft's system requirements are much lower. Also, unfortunately many people have technical problems with Warcraft III due to its system-intensive nature. I think that as Warcraft III matures and Blizzard works out the kinks with more patches, gradually more people will log on.
I don't remember how many people were logged onto Battle.net with Starcraft shortly after its release, do you?
Quote:
|
Like I said earlier, I know it's near damn impossible, if not entirely unattainable to make something like Starcraft again, and I Blizzard has lost many of it's TOP employees.
|
I agree that most likely there will never be an RTS game that was as good as Starcraft is. However, that doesn't mean that Blizzard can't release another good RTS.
I can't speak for all of the employees that have left Blizzard recently, but I know that one reason for some of them was their dealings with Vivendi Universal. I highly doubt that any of them left because they thought that Blizzard is screwing up somehow.
Quote:
|
I have yet to see Starcraft:Ghost, so I won't talk about it yet but, Blizzard is a company who made TWO warcraft games after broodwar, then LOD, and now SC:Ghost will be released. Is this fair? Even with them KNOWING that the biggest community and money is with Starcraft?
|
Who said that Blizzard should have released Starcraft 2 not too long after Starcraft came out? They can take as long as they want to develop it, and they can even choose to not develop it at all. Blizzard isn't stupid, and if they have chosen to not develop Starcraft 2 at this time (or not at all), I'm sure they know that it won't hurt them if that's their decision.
As for your other comment, I don't know if what you say is true, but the Starcraft community is certainly big, yes...
I respectfully disagree with many of your comments about Blizzard, but maybe there is some bias on my part as a casual gamer and appreciates Blizzard and its games for what they are. 
Posted by: Ack1027
Thank you for the quick reply Negotiator. [ As I was getting bored and have nothing to do this afternoon ]
Well some of the replies you gave me seemed to be straight from the Blizzard web site or from an employee who is restricted to only say certain things. It's not negative, it's just that I don't think it's a personal tone that you gave me.
I will specifically talk about Starcraft because I know you've played it and it's the game I know about the most.
Patch 1.10 is bad because of the following reasons:
It fixed the two most worthless bugs in the game while failing to address the other 10+ bugs that are actually game altering.
Also, The reason I said we should go back to 1.9 is because switching to 1.10 made us lose the ability to watch ALL, yes ALL 1.9 replays.
Another problem is that the 16x replay speed option was not fixed for Windows XP users.
So doing the math here: 2 insignificant bugs > All our precious replays?
I don't think so.
Also you speak of low system requirements?
Patch 1.10 introduced a sound bug that can only be fixed by downloading DirectX 9.0a which takes up to an hour or more on 56k modems. Which IS the majority of modems used in the United States. Also Windows NT users aren't even able to fix it by downloading DirectX 9.oa.
This patch also introduced 5 BRAND new bugs/glitches. Here are two of them.
http://www.sclegacy.com/article.php?sid=1661
And as for some background information about me, I Negotiator am not a very hardcore gamer. In fact the only ' Hardcore ' part of me is Starcraft. That is one of the few things in life I can take some pride in. I've been on a 56k for 4 years and recently broadband for a little over 1 year. I've played about 20 games MAX for the pc and have continued to play about only 3 of them. Starcraft, Counter Strike, and Heroes 3. Also, I'm young so I don't have much of my own money, so it's not like I can just buy any game that looks good to me. I buy based on recommendation.
My pizza is here so I must go, I apologize for not addressing your response fully.
Thanks again.
Posted by: INeedHelp
I'm still waiting to see what Flagship Studio has to offer to its customers.
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
Quote:
|
Well some of the replies you gave me seemed to be straight from the Blizzard web site or from an employee who is restricted to only say certain things. It's not negative, it's just that I don't think it's a personal tone that you gave me.
|
I assure you that I don't work for Blizzard and that none of my responses were copied from a Blizzard webpage. I'm sorry to hear that you think that my tone wasn't "personal", although I'm not sure what your definition of "personal" is. I just said the first things that came to my mind when I read your post, and most of those things were reactions to comments that I felt needed some clarification.
Quote:
|
Also, The reason I said we should go back to 1.9 is because switching to 1.10 made us lose the ability to watch ALL, yes ALL 1.9 replays.
|
Well, unfortunately that's just a "side effect" of the replay feature. I see your point when you comment on how the patch was so insignificant and it rendered previous replays unwatchable. One option you have is to install the game to another location on your hard drive and then patch it to 1.09: to do this, though, the Starcraft registry key needs to be deleted so the Starcraft installer doesn't think that the game is installed. If you don't feel like mucking around in the registry, you could make another user account and install the 1.09 version of the game under it.
The above suggestion is one for someone who is kind of desperate, now that I think about it.
Quote:
|
Another problem is that the 16x replay speed option was not fixed for Windows XP users.
|
I haven't played Starcraft regularly since Warcraft III came out, but I've always had problems with playing back replays at high speeds...
Quote:
|
Also you speak of low system requirements?
|
Yes, yes I do. The requirements needed for optimal performance in Starcraft are much less than they are in Warcraft III, and Starcraft is not as sensitive to system stability problems as Warcraft III is.
Quote:
|
Patch 1.10 introduced a sound bug that can only be fixed by downloading DirectX 9.0a which takes up to an hour or more on 56k modems. Which IS the majority of modems used in the United States. Also Windows NT users aren't even able to fix it by downloading DirectX 9.oa.
|
That's not really a system requirements issue, but yes, downloading DirectX 9.0a on a dial-up connection could be an inconvenience for some people. If it's a problem, most modern games include 9.0b on the CD now, and I believe that you can get DirectX on CD from Microsoft.
Everyone should upgrade to the latest version of DirectX anyway, people who expect to play the latest and greatest computer games need it. It's just part of basic system maintenance to upgrade DirectX, especially if you get a new PC that doesn't have it.
Most home users don't use Windows NT 4.0...
I do recall hearing some complaints about new bugs that have cropped up in patch 1.10, but I don't think I've seen any myself during the couple times I've played Starcraft since 1.10 came out. I think that the game is still playable, and I also think that Blizzard isn't the kind of company to just ignore problems that are quite obvious, such as the ones detailed in the link you posted. The thing about Blizzard is that they take a while to do things, but the end result is usually worth it. I'd certainly prefer that Blizzard take their time to release a patch that isn't as buggy than release a half-ass patch that just creates more problems.
Posted by: Ack1027
Quote:
Originally posted by NegotiatorSmith
I do recall hearing some complaints about new bugs that have cropped up in patch 1.10, but I don't think I've seen any myself during the couple times I've played Starcraft since 1.10 came out. I think that the game is still playable, and I also think that Blizzard isn't the kind of company to just ignore problems that are quite obvious, such as the ones detailed in the link you posted. The thing about Blizzard is that they take a while to do things, but the end result is usually worth it. I'd certainly prefer that Blizzard take their time to release a patch that isn't as buggy than release a half-ass patch that just creates more problems.
|
The thing is, that they did create a half-ass patch that creates more problems than solutions when they made 1.10. The very day that 1.10 was released, thousands emailed Blizzard with complaints. And now with these new bugs/glitches, I'm still pretty sure Blizzard is not working on a new patch for a game, as old as Starcraft, as we speak. The intervals of which they create patches has become longer and longer. [ Isn't the whole point of a patch to fix problems so the game can achieve a higher level of perfection so that one day there won't be a need for another major patch? ] I'm even willing to bet that they won't release a patch for Broodwar this year.
Posted by: NegotiatorSmith
I think that if a new Starcraft patch is in the works, the very earliest it will be released is after WoW comes out. The latest patches for Diablo II and Warcraft III did take quite a while to come out, yes, and I believe that's because Blizzard is putting most of their resources into WoW and putting other things on the backburner for now. I have no doubt that some people don't like that strategy, but since WoW's release won't be too long from now, I think that they should just make the push to get it out and then they can focus on the Starcraft issues.
|
|
|
|
|
