World of Warcraft's community council is a failure (because of course)

[Hawki]

And then they spend the next decade chipping away at their reputation.

Obviously Diablo 3 was a disaster.

StarCraft 2 has ran its course.

Heroes of the Storm is basically dead.

World of Warcraft is on its second bad expansion in a row.

Overwatch is in limbo.

They even dug up the corpse of Warcraft 3, and then promptly ruined it.

And now the company is receiving abuse allegations left and right, whilst being sued by the literal government, all whilst bleeding senior staff members, and continuing to make poor decisions for their existing games.

I'd say that is a little more significant than a single overhyped, buggy release.

So, I'm responding to this, because it's a case of "technically true, but..." Basically, I don't think there was a steady "chipping away" - if anything, the 'chips' started very recently. But as to these:

-D3 was a disaster at launch, absolutely, but to claim that the game in of itself was a disaster? I really can't agree. It isn't borne out by sales figures, or critical reception, or how D3 in its final state is generally well regarded (in my experience) compared to how it came out.

-SC2 stopped getting additional content c. October, 2020. That's ten straight years of constant content for an RTS that was commerically and critically successful. Again, not sure how this was chipping away at anything, unless the goalposts are that SC2 wasn't as influential as SC1.

-Yes, HotS is in maintenance mode, but again, how is this chipping away? I'm not sure how HotS damaged Blizzard's reputation unless the standards for it are not being the #1 MOBA. Yeah, HotS wasn't in the, um, 'league' of LoL or Dota 2, but it's certainly one of the more notable MOBAs out there. How many managed to succeed at all apart from the big 2? Smite, certainly, but apart from that, you've only got niche stuff.

-I can't really comment on WoW, so I'll say "okay," and move on.

-Yes, Overwatch is quiet right now, but you're conflating the "now" with the "then." Again, I'm not sure how Overwatch damaged anything concerning Blizzard. Critically, commercially, and culturally, it was (and I'd argue, is) a success.

-WC3R, absolutely.

So, yeah. The TL, DR is that I don't think there was a decade of 'chipping away.' The hit Blizzard has taken to its reputation is, I'd argue, much more recent. I'd argue it began significantly in BC 2018 with the announcement of Immortal (nonsensical as the reaction was, it did do damage), and things have got worse since then (Reforged, and the current HR scandal), but to chart some decade-long decline with stuff like D3, HOTS, and Overwatch? Eh...

Funny thing about this, is back when WoW was good it also had limited progression per week. There was a tight limit on dailies you could do, and you could only run a raid once a week. There were no persistant and endlessly farmable progression systems.

Um...

Sorry, I barely play MMOs, but how are such restrictions a good thing?

If I'm playing an MMO (and especially if I'm paying a subscription for it), why should the game stop me from doing certain activities?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Sorry, I barely play MMOs, but how are such restrictions a good thing?

Well primarily for wow it made maxing your possible progression on a single character easy, which meant you had a lot of time to level alts or play other games and didn't have to devote everything to WOW or a single character in WoW.

So if you say max out your Warrior for the week, you can level a healer without feeling like your warrior is falling behind.

 

[09philj]

Um...

Sorry, I barely play MMOs, but how are such restrictions a good thing?

If I'm playing an MMO (and especially if I'm paying a subscription for it), why should the game stop me from doing certain activities?

Obviously it does benefit the developer by making sure that you're subbed for longer, but it is ultimately good for players as well. There's much less FOMO if you have an achievable limit on your progression per week, which allows you to do other things in the game and also play other games and do other activities without having to think about progression. MMOs tend to attract people who can get really into a grind, and if you don't stop people like that from playing constantly, they will, even if playing it constantly stops it from being fun.

 

[Hawki]

Obviously it does benefit the developer by making sure that you're subbed for longer, but it is ultimately good for players as well. There's much less FOMO if you have an achievable limit on your progression per week, which allows you to do other things in the game and also play other games and do other activities without having to think about progression. MMOs tend to attract people who can get really into a grind, and if you don't stop people like that from playing constantly, they will, even if playing it constantly stops it from being fun.

Sorry, that still seems like the whole "you think you want it, but you don't" mentality. It's none of the developers' business how I play their game, IMO. If I can't stop myself from playing it, that's on me.

I mean, imagine if you could only play a certain no. of multiplayer matches in a given week for instance.

 

[meiam]

I disagree on weekly limit helping player. If there's limit and you miss a couple of week it's no big deal since you can just do a bit more next time you play to "catch up". If there is a limit you can never catch up on those, they're wasted forever.

It's probably good on the developer front (that's essentially how genshin impact works and it's priting money) but from the player point of view its sucks.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I think the main issue is people get addicted to progression. I don't play these type of games because the gameplay is rarely fun and I realize quite fast I'm just playing the game for the numbers to go up. I'll play games with superb gameplay for thousands of hours and I couldn't care less if everything is available the 1st time I play the game. People played games back in the day like Goldeneye/SOCOM/OG Halo/etc because the games were simply fun and that's all that should matter. Progression systems are mainly Skinner boxes. Progression to me is actually getting better at the game through fully learning and understanding the mechanics getting every little bit better by exploiting them as much as possible while improving my actual skill at the game. I'm not going to keep playing a game because I'll get look cool while fighting some awesome dragon later on; if the level 1 rats (and whatnot) aren't fun to fight in the beginning, the endgame dragon isn't going to be fun to fight either.

And having some sorta community council is gonna be a massive failure no matter what. You really only need a few people on the dev team that are really good at the game and also understand all the playstyles (or classes). Having players dictate where the game is going even if they are being objective without bias is going to end in disaster because the players themselves don't know what they actually want. All the games I've ever played that I loved, I couldn't have told you what I wanted from a game and gotten that game. Most of the things you end up loving are things you didn't even know you wanted. That's why fans taking over anything almost always ends up very poorly.

 

[MrCalavera]

IMO their reputation was already down the toilet ever since Diablo 3 Error 47. No one took Blizzard seriously or gave two fucks about their games except the Blizzard only fans.

Overwatch was an anomaly because it was a brand new IP, and also released on Consoles.

Diablo III was more a sign of things to come. Now Immortal - this is where things started rapidly spiralling into disaster.

Yeah, they did it in about 10 years.

CDPR released one game that turned out to be a huge success, followed immediately by one disastrous launch.

Blizzard meanwhile had 20 years of consecutively hitting it out the park, game after game, behind their belt.

I'd argue the latter is a bigger fall from grace

 

[BrawlMan]

Diablo III was more a sign of things to come. Now Immortal - this is where things started rapidly spiralling into disaster.

CDPR released one game that turned out to be a huge success, followed immediately by one disastrous launch.

Blizzard meanwhile had 20 years of consecutively hitting it out the park, game after game, behind their belt.

I'd argue the latter is a bigger fall from grace

I was not arguing the bigger fall from grace, I was just pointing out how fast it happened with CDPR.

 

[Hawki]

Diablo III was more a sign of things to come. Now Immortal - this is where things started rapidly spiralling into disaster.

How, though? D3 had a rough launch, Immortal had a rough reception. Neither of those facts are indicative of their overall quality.

 

[BrawlMan]

How, though? D3 had a rough launch, Immortal had a rough reception. Neither of those facts are indicative of their overall quality.

Says you.

​

Former World of Warcraft designer apologizes for the cringeworthy, sexist stuff they said at BlizzCon 2010

Greg Street says the answer to a question about over-sexualized World of Warcraft characters was "embarrassing."

www.pcgamer.com

Kotaku | Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.

Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.

www.kotaku.com.au

 

[Samtemdo8]

Says you.

​

Former World of Warcraft designer apologizes for the cringeworthy, sexist stuff they said at BlizzCon 2010

Greg Street says the answer to a question about over-sexualized World of Warcraft characters was "embarrassing."

www.pcgamer.com

Kotaku | Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.

Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.

www.kotaku.com.au

That's just the same example of "Rough Reception" that Hawki already mentioned.

 

[BrawlMan]

That's just the same example of "Rough Reception" that Hawki already mentioned.

Not really. Especially when the evidence and rumors piled up in the 2010s. The signs were already there, it was just a (willing) matter of paying attention and caring. Hawki's "rough reception" argument is bullshit and he knows it. If you agree with him, too bad, I don't.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Not really. Especially when the evidence and rumors piles up the decade in the 2010s. The signs were already there, it was just a (willing) matter of paying attention and caring. Hawki's ""rough reception" argument is bullshit and he knows it. If you agree with, too bad, I don't.

I was only talking about the Diablo Immortal thing having a rought reception, I didn't see that you edited your post.

 

[Hawki]

Snip

What does any of that have to do with the quality of D3 or Diablo Immortal?

Not really. Especially when the evidence and rumors piled up in the 2010s. The signs were already there, it was just a (willing) matter of paying attention and caring. Hawki's "rough reception" argument is bullshit and he knows it. If you agree with him, too bad, I don't.

You seem to be responding to an argument that I haven't actually made.

If the swimsuit thing is cited as an example of the revelations we've had now, then yes, I agree. I wasn't talking about that. I was asking how D3 and DI's initial launch and reception were indicative of anything. Because any personal thoughts aside, my general understanding was that D3 is generally well regarded these days, and DI's generally had positive feedback from those who've played it.

 

[BrawlMan]

What does any of that have to do with the quality of D3 or Diablo Immortal?

I was asking how D3 and DI's initial launch and reception were indicative of anything.

Figure it out.

my general understanding was that D3 is generally well regarded these days,

After the fact, and when they removed the online auction and online requirement. When D3 first came out, not everyone was happy.

DI's generally had positive feedback from those who've played it.

From bootlickers and people who only play mobile and nothing else.

 

[Hawki]

Figure it out.

Not an argument.

After the fact, and when they removed the online auction and online requirement. When D3 first came out, not everyone was happy.

Again, all true. It doesn't address the argument of how D3 is seen now, nor does it address the idea of D3 being "a sign of things to come" (and online is still required).

This isn't even uncommon. For instance, "No Man's Sky/Sea of Thieves had a rough launch" and "No Man's Sky/Sea of Thieves are well regarded now" aren't mutually exclusive statements. Similarly, if it came to light that Hello Games or Rare had similar staff issues, I'm not sure how those botched launches could be considered "hints" of it.

From bootlickers and people who only play mobile and nothing else.

Again, not an argument. It's basically a claim that anyone who likes X is either pretending to like X, or doesn't know any better.

 

[BrawlMan]

Not an argument.



Again, all true. It doesn't address the argument of how D3 is seen now, nor does it address the idea of D3 being "a sign of things to come" (and online is still required).

This isn't even uncommon. For instance, "No Man's Sky/Sea of Thieves had a rough launch" and "No Man's Sky/Sea of Thieves are well regarded now" aren't mutually exclusive statements. Similarly, if it came to light that Hello Games or Rare had similar staff issues, I'm not sure how those botched launches could be considered "hints" of it.



Again, not an argument. It's basically a claim that anyone who likes X is either pretending to like X, or doesn't know any better.

You've mistaken me for someone that gives shit. Sorry to disappoint. Can't figure out, not my problem; especially when it is so obvious. Not wasting any more time on this.