Stolen Pixels #118: A Farce to be Reckoned With
The overlord sets his evil sights on the real world.
Read Full Article
The overlord sets his evil sights on the real world.
Read Full Article
Stolen Pixels #118: A Farce to be Reckoned With
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Overlord, Overlord. Perhaps he should just stick to purposeless(spell check?) acts of violent evil. Technical, real evil is a sight to behold and is held only by politicians and game devs.
Well, true, although EA have reduced the evil in their diet these last few years. Picking up Brutal Legend, for example, after Activison dropped it, has gained them a few brownie points.Woem said:
I only wish Spore hadn't been so damn dumbed down - the Galaxy map on that was one of the few times I've been impressed with the scope of things - if only there where somewhere interesting to go in it
I'm going to go ahead and assume that there will be LAN, but you'll have to log onto bnet to use it. Or it'll have some kind of built-in Garena, which would be nice. Hell, I can get less than half a second delay against someone half a world away when using Garena, so for people in the same room it'd probably be the same as LAN.
I still think this new (possibly Activision-spawned?) strategy is stupid beyond reason, and something I didn't expect from Blizzard in general. They'll lose a bunch of customers, at least for a few weeks, by doing this. And, by the time those people decide they actually do want in on SC2 there will be dedicated servers that bypass bnet and let you play on LAN anyway.
I still think this new (possibly Activision-spawned?) strategy is stupid beyond reason, and something I didn't expect from Blizzard in general. They'll lose a bunch of customers, at least for a few weeks, by doing this. And, by the time those people decide they actually do want in on SC2 there will be dedicated servers that bypass bnet and let you play on LAN anyway.
I was wondering if this may have been an Activision-spawned idea as well, but let's face it. Blizzard is massive enough on their own that they are probably the only studio that doesn't need to listen to them. They can easily have free-reign while Activision rules over all the other studios with an iron-fist.
Still, I've always been a console gamer and have never been great at strategy games (I love Master of Orion 2! I can't play it on anything harder than easy without getting my ass kicked...), so I've only had respect for Blizzard but never been a fan myself. But after the past few years, I've honestly begun to hate them. They had me excited for Starcraft Ghost, and even swallowed Swingin' Ape Studios, who showed a lot of great potential with Metal Arms: Glitch in the System, and then canceled Ghost claiming "they were going to focus on next-gen consoles". That was five or six years ago, and all I've seen is WoW updates, Starcraft 2 without LAN support, Diablo 3 and NOTHING out of Swingin' Ape. Considering that I find games like Diablo boring, they generally have absolutely nothing worthwhile and are merely milking franchises.
What I think I hate the most, however, is no matter what they are going to be successful. They can release StarCraft 2 without LAN, people will *****, but in the end they will just buy it anyway. Diablo 3's graphical style can piss a million players off, but they'll all buy it anyway simply because it's Diablo 3. And then there's the monster that is World of Warcraft.
I'd say the company should be respected since they clearly know what they are doing in terms of game design, but the last NEW game they truly released was World of Warcraft. We have yet to see if Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2 are really quality games, but everyone assumes so simply due to the love they carried years ago for the predecessors.
Still, Blizzard doesn't make bad games, so I'll give them that at the very least. But I can't help but hate them for swallowing a studio that had so much potential and permanently ending a game that COULD have had a sequel, but instead insist on ignoring console gamers in favor of PC. And even their PC gamers are getting screwed over, as now you can't LAN StarCraft 2.
Maybe Activision and Blizzard are like two lovers that have belonged with each other all along, and none of us realized it until now?
Still, I've always been a console gamer and have never been great at strategy games (I love Master of Orion 2! I can't play it on anything harder than easy without getting my ass kicked...), so I've only had respect for Blizzard but never been a fan myself. But after the past few years, I've honestly begun to hate them. They had me excited for Starcraft Ghost, and even swallowed Swingin' Ape Studios, who showed a lot of great potential with Metal Arms: Glitch in the System, and then canceled Ghost claiming "they were going to focus on next-gen consoles". That was five or six years ago, and all I've seen is WoW updates, Starcraft 2 without LAN support, Diablo 3 and NOTHING out of Swingin' Ape. Considering that I find games like Diablo boring, they generally have absolutely nothing worthwhile and are merely milking franchises.
What I think I hate the most, however, is no matter what they are going to be successful. They can release StarCraft 2 without LAN, people will *****, but in the end they will just buy it anyway. Diablo 3's graphical style can piss a million players off, but they'll all buy it anyway simply because it's Diablo 3. And then there's the monster that is World of Warcraft.
I'd say the company should be respected since they clearly know what they are doing in terms of game design, but the last NEW game they truly released was World of Warcraft. We have yet to see if Diablo 3 or StarCraft 2 are really quality games, but everyone assumes so simply due to the love they carried years ago for the predecessors.
Still, Blizzard doesn't make bad games, so I'll give them that at the very least. But I can't help but hate them for swallowing a studio that had so much potential and permanently ending a game that COULD have had a sequel, but instead insist on ignoring console gamers in favor of PC. And even their PC gamers are getting screwed over, as now you can't LAN StarCraft 2.
Maybe Activision and Blizzard are like two lovers that have belonged with each other all along, and none of us realized it until now?
Maybe Koreans don't have LAN parties? I pretty much get the impression that Starcraft 2 is being crafted for the Korean market first and foremost, and the rest of the world next.
And since Koreans have those 100Mbps lines, they probably don't care much for LANning.
Roll on 2010
And since Koreans have those 100Mbps lines, they probably don't care much for LANning.
Roll on 2010
Great comic.
If you look at things these day in the gaming industry is like all the companies have an evil deeds quota they have to fill every semester or else... I don`t know... they have to divide by 0 or something.
If you look at things these day in the gaming industry is like all the companies have an evil deeds quota they have to fill every semester or else... I don`t know... they have to divide by 0 or something.
Blizzard this week. Should I be expecting a joke on Evil Bob Kotick and his Expensiver (that;s not a typo) Games? Just so the thing comes full circle?
No you're not all that weird, Shamus. Or if you are, then I bought a freak t-shirt too. I have near zero interest in SC 2 as a single-player or online game, but my friends organise PC/360 LANs of near 30 people every few months. SC and WC 3 are the staple PC games, so I was contemplating getting SC 2 just for a reprieve from the endless shooters. Now that LAN is off the table, or now that it may as well be online, no. Just no. Even though we have internet access at these LANs (we're really kitted out) I just won't support such a middle-finger gesture.
Man that was a great game. I regret selling Metal Arms every time I think of it.ccesarano said:
Maybe we can laser a giant middle finger onto the moon?
I don't think you even needed the comic to make it funny and make your point, this is a complete dick move by Blizzard and I just really hope they see the error of their ways.
I don't think you even needed the comic to make it funny and make your point, this is a complete dick move by Blizzard and I just really hope they see the error of their ways.
Funny as usual Shamus, but I'm not sure I actually believe your point.
Don't get me wrong - LAN parties is nearly the only way I ever played Starcraft either - but I don't think they're a market consideration anymore. Part of the novelty of them was that you got to play against live opponents, and that is SO not a novelty anymore. These days I'm not sure anyone can be bothered to go through the living hell that was involved in cabling everything to a decent-sized hub, and getting everyones machine to recognise the network (you _do_ remember how much time and profanity that always took, right?) to take their computer round someone else's house. I mean, I loved LAN parties. A friend of mine went so far as to buy 6 cheapo machines from the university and set up a permanent LAN at his house just so we could have them without the hassle. But _I_ haven't been to one in years; have you?
So my guess is that while a bunch of us old foagies will miss the LAN component in Starcraft II, we probably were barely going to use it anyways. Noone else will care, since they've been inured to playing multiplayer over the internet even when they're in the same room. It _is_ a shame, but I doubt it'll hurt their sales much.
Don't get me wrong - LAN parties is nearly the only way I ever played Starcraft either - but I don't think they're a market consideration anymore. Part of the novelty of them was that you got to play against live opponents, and that is SO not a novelty anymore. These days I'm not sure anyone can be bothered to go through the living hell that was involved in cabling everything to a decent-sized hub, and getting everyones machine to recognise the network (you _do_ remember how much time and profanity that always took, right?) to take their computer round someone else's house. I mean, I loved LAN parties. A friend of mine went so far as to buy 6 cheapo machines from the university and set up a permanent LAN at his house just so we could have them without the hassle. But _I_ haven't been to one in years; have you?
So my guess is that while a bunch of us old foagies will miss the LAN component in Starcraft II, we probably were barely going to use it anyways. Noone else will care, since they've been inured to playing multiplayer over the internet even when they're in the same room. It _is_ a shame, but I doubt it'll hurt their sales much.
About six months ago, I think. I'm trying to set up another one now.Dev Null said:
And yes, we'll be playing Starcraft. (Maybe UT99, if I'm lucky.)
Blizzard has already said Piracy is not the reason. They might be lying, of course.
The truth is, they want us all to go through BNet 2.0, and they don't give a fuck what we want, or even if we CAN.
Which is why, sadly, this will be the first Blizzard game I won't buy. And Diablo 3 looks like it will be the second.
Edit: BTW, we do LAN parties bi-monthly. And we don't have Internet connection. We don't need it to play, you know?.
I say playing with 10-20 friends in the room beats playing with 7 strangers every fucking day. And I pity anyone who says otherwise, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The truth is, they want us all to go through BNet 2.0, and they don't give a fuck what we want, or even if we CAN.
Which is why, sadly, this will be the first Blizzard game I won't buy. And Diablo 3 looks like it will be the second.
Edit: BTW, we do LAN parties bi-monthly. And we don't have Internet connection. We don't need it to play, you know?.
I say playing with 10-20 friends in the room beats playing with 7 strangers every fucking day. And I pity anyone who says otherwise, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.