I love how people here think the word social only applies to facebook type websites...you do know socializing and community are one in the same right? What makes you think socializing = farmville? You only have to look so far as to know that Blizzard wants to make a mmo where you are who you are and your rep will be apart of your person. Isn't that what old schoolers and sandboxers been pining for? A mmo where your social skills have a direct effect on your success? Be an ass, get treated like an ass. Be a decent player and watch your progress improve. Putting the social back in community and yet they still protest...go figure.
The reason people think that is because "social gaming" has been used as a buzz word for FB game apps for a few years now. They're not pulling that idea out of their asses. Yes, I realize (and so do most people) that the word "social" has other meanings, but when it comes to gaming it's been most recently a buzz word applying to the "social web" or sites such as Facebook, Pogo, and others that combine mini gaming with socializing.
SPOILER ALERT: They're still with Activision, so the game is going to blow.
Spoiler alert: This is your opinion. The game will be
Originally posted by djnexus
I used to respect Blizzard back in the diablo 2 and pre diablo 2 era and also warcraft 3 wasnt bad, but I dont anymore. I just dont like what they have become ever since wow hit the streets. And they take god aweful long to release anything.
Starcraft 2 is one of the best games I have played in years! Period. If you like RTS, it is a must have. It's very easy to pick but ridiculously hard to master. Lots of content whichi is great fun.
If you don't like SC though, there hasn't been any diablo updates at all. So I would hold your breath till D3 comes out.
Warcraft 3 was a very good game and so was WoW. But did you play WoW when it came out? If not, you wouldn't understand. A lot of the players here, and by a lot I mean 90%, have played WoW and really loved it especially during the early years of the game, especially the hardcore players.
Originally posted by Interesting
LOL
What they are doing have nothing to do with giving player freedom, procedurally generated, expansive, randomized content, originality, open endedness, ability to affect the world or other players, etc... It has nothing to do what "sandboxers want".
What the "social gaming" means, has everything to do with social networks, and viral media, like facebook, twiter, youtube, etc.
They want that "real ID thing", where they connect virtual life to real life. Thats the core design element they couldnt addapt to WOW.
To make money, they need that element, they want to secure that market of real ID, social network on your gaming.
They need that, thats the key for the future, they know that. Thats what he was thinking about when he mentioned about the "cant change because of design".
What it will do for us sandboxers? Lol... nothing. The gaming element of their "real id, community network thing", will be even more of a themepark, with more scripted paths, linearity, tiers, limited-strict choices, strict balancing, etc... Basically, if they want to multiply their playerbase by many times, they have to water it down and get it every design element even more strict and tightly panoptically controlled. More people, more human factor, more problems, thats is countered with (en)force design decisions, completelly the opposite of what people want, freedom.
What it will do for the genre? What genre? Our genre died, its been 5 years or so. "Mmorpgs are dead" have 5 years or so, sounds about right. Anyway, basically, they are going after the facebook crowd, generically speaking. They want domination worldwide, they will offer everything facebook has plus gaming it lacks. Its an easy win for them. They will just go and rake up the money, because they know they stomp any farmville lookalike.
The current WOW crowd will dry and get older, evolve, see things for what they are, quit, or starve for what everybody is starving... wich is basically what the genre stood for 10 years ago. These people will just increase the target audience for that even more. Buts it wont be made by Blizzard.
The new "Blizzard" MMO? They are going for something much bigger, their next incremental step in evolution. They have the money, the structure, the expertise, the vision... everything is layed out for them. But its not what we, gamers already are looking for. Its not being made for US tm. Its been made for non gamers at all.
They wont compete with WOW. They will be competing with social networks with their new modern day themepark based on real life, with real life people and real ids. A social life simulation never seen before. The potential for socialization will reach its climax through the next Blizzard MMO. People will hang out together despite being physically miles away from each other, think of voip, teamspeak/ventrillo/skype, but with in game avatars, graphics and stuff. Like social network in a GTA game.
You get at home, connect to "the game", and hook up with your friends in a life a like simulation of real world, met new people in game, etc... think 3d sim social network with gta real world + themepark watered down stuff to do. They will be a huge success people will go "how come I never thought of that before", but no, thats obvious, just stupid people dont saw it coming... everybody is tired of designing it for them, you have to not want to see, despite it being in front of your face.
This is all made up and some speculations. There is no evidence at all to support your argument.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
"We're really trying to leverage all the lessons we learned through the years. Some of which we were able to address in World of Warcraft and others that maybe because of the design decisions we've made, you just can't address."
So some lessons of Wow will be used in the new MMO: confirmed/.
Some issues couldn't be addressed because of the design decisions in WOW: confirmed/.
It could mean anything, but my guess is no longer single server based realms (they cluster anything these days, but they can't cluster the log in realms because of the basic design), world changing phasing techniques across mulitple servers and who knows perhaps game play without pure levels.
Remember the level-less advancing in Cata: they deleted it at the last minute. It shows that WOW is not designed well to go without levels.
The philosophy is clear: "you meet a person in RL and you play together if you want to", is simply not possible in WOW and very annoying if you have 6 million western players.
Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by Gruug I posted this on another site regarding Activisions move to garner a foothold in the "pay as you go" jungle through something new for their CoD series. I think since Activision and Blizzard are the same company that it applies here as well; "Hold on to your wallets (or credit cards) because we are going to find more ways to get money from our suckers...errr ahhh....customers." As long as people buy into "Big Gamings" hype, we the customer are only going to suffer.
Why does that sounds like Smedley? Activisions motto sounds like "pay through your nose", I wish Blizz never merged with those guys.
Sounds like Smedley because it's the same mind... the same "personal view of reality"; the view being that all of us are cattle to be milked and finally sent to the supermarket ground up and in small packages. The mindset that now is in every brain of every MMO investor, publisher, developer, artist, and especially the accountants.
Don't worry... the "old way" of viewing reality, the view that people should come before profit, will continue to fade and be forgotten so you are not haunted by the memories.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!" ............... "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. " __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__ ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Bobby Kottick said it himself. The next blizzard MMO will go straight for the facebook/social networking/social gaming (farmville) steak.
I cant even credit it myself, as it was obvious.
"Oh, its so vague". ITS NOT VAGUE. JUST THINK.
Thats where the money is. Shark smells the blood.
Stop the delusional "oh god Im all wet and horny its a sandbox". No. Its not sandbox. Its not good for gaming.
Yeah, but at the same time these dudes say that Farmville and Minecraft are so fantastic games ...
Stop the Blizzard hate will you.
I think I was right with my analysis: they will keep IN features of WOW that were succesful (confirmed by Morhaime IF you can read the original line) and ... they will add features that can not be addressed in WOW because of its basic design (confirmed by Morhaime in the same line ...).
The philosophy is clear: regroup players within BNet and try to make a social game where your RL friends can be invited/joined any time (not possible in single server based on line play).
The rest is pure speculation and the usual Blizzard warrior mentality.
Bobby Kottick said it himself. The next blizzard MMO will go straight for the facebook/social networking/social gaming (farmville) steak.
I cant even credit it myself, as it was obvious.
"Oh, its so vague". ITS NOT VAGUE. JUST THINK.
Thats where the money is. Shark smells the blood.
Stop the delusional "oh god Im all wet and horny its a sandbox". No. Its not sandbox. Its not good for gaming.
Yeah, but at the same time these dudes say that Farmville and Minecraft are so fantastic games ...
Stop the Blizzard hate will you.
I think I was right with my analysis: they will keep IN features of WOW that were succesful (confirmed by Morhaime IF you can read the original line) and ... they will add features that can not be addressed in WOW because of its basic design (confirmed by Morhaime in the same line ...).
The philosophy is clear: regroup players within BNet and try to make a social game where your RL friends can be invited/joined any time (not possible in single server based on line play).
The rest is pure speculation and the usual Blizzard warrior mentality.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
As long as they're making the big bucks, Blizzard should be good and (fairly) out of corporate meddling. It's when the money train stops coming in and trickles down that subsidiaries start getting gobbled up by their owning companies or being integrated and fading away in the larger corporate entity. Which won't happen to Blizzard for quite some years, the way it looks.
Still, I liked the old Blizzard teams and way of doing things pre-2005 better than the new Blizzard teams and current way of doing things. All their latest products of the last few years while still fun just don't hold a candle to their games made 5+ years ago. I can't picture current Blizzard create a Diablo or Star craft out of the blue or make a drastic change for a sequel as they did from WC2 to WC3.
If WC3 had been made in 2010-2011 it'd just have been a very polished, fine tuned and graphically upgraded version of WC2, and not the WC3 as it ended up to be.
But who knows, I hope their new Titan MMO project will show that they still have the same creative spark of brilliance as 5-10 years ago.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'm starting to believe if Blizzard announced plans to make a sandbox MMO this community would be against that too.
I think I'm the only one here who is actually excited to see the new social features they unavail. I hear "Project Titan" is going to be a MMOFPS. A MMOFPS with social features ... could be interesting.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.
There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?
Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.
There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?
Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.
Whats the fuck is your problem?
You're comparing apples to oranges. All he said is that Blizzard is a big stake in Activision, that does not mean he said he knew whether Activision had the last word.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.
There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?
Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.
Whats the fuck is your problem?
Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.
Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.
And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
And what exactly do hardcore gamers have to do with Blizzard? I'm confused.
Yeh i wonder myself also when i read this topic lol.
WoW hardcore? Am i missing something with its cartoonish look its super casual below avarage difficulty and fluffy content gaming world hehe.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I have a facebook account. I thought I'd try one of the facebook games. Farming sounded boring so I tried Vampire Wars.
I played for a few times, maybe 4 or 5, and that's about as much as it could keep my interest.
It's not like an MMO. you just click on some things, the game tells you what happened, then you can play some more if you buy credits, or wait to play again tomorrow.
You click attack, and you get a message "you killed so and so". Or "so nad so defeated you".
Then you collect crap, like batwings, fangs, and whatnot, that increases your stats.
It's boring as crap. I don't see how anyone can play those.
It's not like chatting with people, and grouping up, and killing mobs and doing quests in a 3d environment.
I don't think social games are ever gonna replace 3d mmos.
I don't think social games are ever gonna replace 3d mmos.
They'll never replace them, but they will exist along side them. Those dinky little games are fine for people who aren't looking for something as involved as a full blown MMO. They're great for folks looking for a game with the visceral feel of a crossword puzzle, but with some kind of persistence. Ideal for those 20 minute bus rides to and from work each day.
Personally, I'd rather stick forks in my eyes than play anything born of "social media", but I'm the minority.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.
There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?
Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.
Whats the fuck is your problem?
Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.
Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.
And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?
Coaches can also ruin "star players" by giving them terrible advice, and ruining their morale by berating them when they don't do what the coach wants.
Besides, sports is one thing, business is another. Activision and Kotick are slaves to their stockholders. Some people at Blizzard may try to hold out to make the game better before release, or to try to refuse shifts in game design philosophies, but at the end of the day Blizzard is stil la corporation that is beholden to it's shareholders, and Activision and Kotick are now tied at the hip to Blizzard when it comes to financial results, which means they will do everything within their power to force Blizzard to shift to their money grabbing philosophies, up to and including getting the board of directors involved in forcign Blizzard to kowtow to Activision.
It's already been happening since the merger. The drop in quality due to rushed production, addition of more and more RMT, endless regurgitation of more of the same "franchise" hits... Activision has it's greedy little fingers pulling strings in Blizzard.
Comments
The reason people think that is because "social gaming" has been used as a buzz word for FB game apps for a few years now. They're not pulling that idea out of their asses. Yes, I realize (and so do most people) that the word "social" has other meanings, but when it comes to gaming it's been most recently a buzz word applying to the "social web" or sites such as Facebook, Pogo, and others that combine mini gaming with socializing.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Credit. Thats something you have to take by force.
Spoiler alert: This is your opinion. The game will be
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
*yawns*
Can't really muster any interest for anything which is still so vague. Need moar intel to develop anything remotely resembling an opinion.
My brand new bloggity blog.
I quote from Morhaime:
"We're really trying to leverage all the lessons we learned through the years. Some of which we were able to address in World of Warcraft and others that maybe because of the design decisions we've made, you just can't address."
So some lessons of Wow will be used in the new MMO: confirmed/.
Some issues couldn't be addressed because of the design decisions in WOW: confirmed/.
It could mean anything, but my guess is no longer single server based realms (they cluster anything these days, but they can't cluster the log in realms because of the basic design), world changing phasing techniques across mulitple servers and who knows perhaps game play without pure levels.
Remember the level-less advancing in Cata: they deleted it at the last minute. It shows that WOW is not designed well to go without levels.
The philosophy is clear: "you meet a person in RL and you play together if you want to", is simply not possible in WOW and very annoying if you have 6 million western players.
Activisions motto sounds like "pay through your nose", I wish Blizz never merged with those guys.
Sounds like Smedley because it's the same mind... the same "personal view of reality"; the view being that all of us are cattle to be milked and finally sent to the supermarket ground up and in small packages. The mindset that now is in every brain of every MMO investor, publisher, developer, artist, and especially the accountants.
Don't worry... the "old way" of viewing reality, the view that people should come before profit, will continue to fade and be forgotten so you are not haunted by the memories.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Ok.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252
Read this smart guys.
Bobby Kottick said it himself. The next blizzard MMO will go straight for the facebook/social networking/social gaming (farmville) steak.
I cant even credit it myself, as it was obvious.
"Oh, its so vague". ITS NOT VAGUE. JUST THINK.
Thats where the money is. Shark smells the blood.
Stop the delusional "oh god Im all wet and horny its a sandbox". No. Its not sandbox. Its not good for gaming.
One could certainly hope so.
Even if he's been enormously successful in the gaming business, his philosophy towards gaming isn't a very likeable one to gamers.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Yeah, but at the same time these dudes say that Farmville and Minecraft are so fantastic games ...
Stop the Blizzard hate will you.
I think I was right with my analysis: they will keep IN features of WOW that were succesful (confirmed by Morhaime IF you can read the original line) and ... they will add features that can not be addressed in WOW because of its basic design (confirmed by Morhaime in the same line ...).
The philosophy is clear: regroup players within BNet and try to make a social game where your RL friends can be invited/joined any time (not possible in single server based on line play).
The rest is pure speculation and the usual Blizzard warrior mentality.
Blizzard has nothing to do with that.
Its MAJORLY Activision. Thomas and Bobby.
So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.
The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.
These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.
As long as they're making the big bucks, Blizzard should be good and (fairly) out of corporate meddling. It's when the money train stops coming in and trickles down that subsidiaries start getting gobbled up by their owning companies or being integrated and fading away in the larger corporate entity. Which won't happen to Blizzard for quite some years, the way it looks.
Still, I liked the old Blizzard teams and way of doing things pre-2005 better than the new Blizzard teams and current way of doing things. All their latest products of the last few years while still fun just don't hold a candle to their games made 5+ years ago. I can't picture current Blizzard create a Diablo or Star craft out of the blue or make a drastic change for a sequel as they did from WC2 to WC3.
If WC3 had been made in 2010-2011 it'd just have been a very polished, fine tuned and graphically upgraded version of WC2, and not the WC3 as it ended up to be.
But who knows, I hope their new Titan MMO project will show that they still have the same creative spark of brilliance as 5-10 years ago.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'm starting to believe if Blizzard announced plans to make a sandbox MMO this community would be against that too.
I think I'm the only one here who is actually excited to see the new social features they unavail. I hear "Project Titan" is going to be a MMOFPS. A MMOFPS with social features ... could be interesting.
@Shellshockro- Thumbs Up
Agreed.
The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.
There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?
Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.
Whats the fuck is your problem?
You're comparing apples to oranges. All he said is that Blizzard is a big stake in Activision, that does not mean he said he knew whether Activision had the last word.
At least they know that "more of the same" is killing the MMO genre.
The "social gaming" worries me though. I don't care if I play against friends or not, I really don't.
Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.
Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.
And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Yeh i wonder myself also when i read this topic lol.
WoW hardcore? Am i missing something with its cartoonish look its super casual below avarage difficulty and fluffy content gaming world hehe.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
"To break the mold, sometimes you have to start over,"
To break the mold? I lol'd..
Watch out blizz, you might hurt yourself.
Eat me!
I have a facebook account. I thought I'd try one of the facebook games. Farming sounded boring so I tried Vampire Wars.
I played for a few times, maybe 4 or 5, and that's about as much as it could keep my interest.
It's not like an MMO. you just click on some things, the game tells you what happened, then you can play some more if you buy credits, or wait to play again tomorrow.
You click attack, and you get a message "you killed so and so". Or "so nad so defeated you".
Then you collect crap, like batwings, fangs, and whatnot, that increases your stats.
It's boring as crap. I don't see how anyone can play those.
It's not like chatting with people, and grouping up, and killing mobs and doing quests in a 3d environment.
I don't think social games are ever gonna replace 3d mmos.
Give your best shot blizz, Anet is my company now... gl.
They'll never replace them, but they will exist along side them. Those dinky little games are fine for people who aren't looking for something as involved as a full blown MMO. They're great for folks looking for a game with the visceral feel of a crossword puzzle, but with some kind of persistence. Ideal for those 20 minute bus rides to and from work each day.
Personally, I'd rather stick forks in my eyes than play anything born of "social media", but I'm the minority.
Coaches can also ruin "star players" by giving them terrible advice, and ruining their morale by berating them when they don't do what the coach wants.
Besides, sports is one thing, business is another. Activision and Kotick are slaves to their stockholders. Some people at Blizzard may try to hold out to make the game better before release, or to try to refuse shifts in game design philosophies, but at the end of the day Blizzard is stil la corporation that is beholden to it's shareholders, and Activision and Kotick are now tied at the hip to Blizzard when it comes to financial results, which means they will do everything within their power to force Blizzard to shift to their money grabbing philosophies, up to and including getting the board of directors involved in forcign Blizzard to kowtow to Activision.
It's already been happening since the merger. The drop in quality due to rushed production, addition of more and more RMT, endless regurgitation of more of the same "franchise" hits... Activision has it's greedy little fingers pulling strings in Blizzard.