Blizzard's Next-Gen MMO An "Enormous Investment"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Get with the times, Tom. Blizz confirmed ages ago (at the last BlizzCon, I think?) that the new MMO was going to be an entirely new world from any of their past games.Tom Goldman said:
By definition, perfecting something is innovation, because to perfect a system you presumably have to change it.Atmos Duality said:
Diablo was the logical next phase in a gameplay style that had been around since the early 80's. It was neither innovative nor derivative. It was a game that many companies would have made, but Blizzard did it first and did it best.Tom Goldman said:
Blizzard's real strength is exection, not innovation.
However, by saying Blizzard's games are not innovative, I am not saying they are uncreative or completely lack innovative elements. It's just that I wouldn't call an entire game innovative unless it breaks new ground on multiple levels or else has a core element that comes completely out of left field.
Hmm. By that logic, I could take the game "Tetris" and change it so that instead of dropping blocks into place, the player forces oddly shaped turds out of their arse into a jar, and it would still be called "innovation".WhiteTigerShiro said:
Every single concept presented in WoW was taken from somewhere else. Make no mistake, it's an effective money maker, but I can scarcely think of anything that made it "innovative" or "original".
On reflection, perhaps this demonstrates that not all innovation is necessarily original. Or good for that matter.
I used to feel the same way. Then I realized that TOR isn't really an MMORPG. It's actually KOTOR 3 with a multiplayer mode and a subscription payment model.Fluse said:
Although a good argument could be made that with 8 class storylines, it's really KOTOR 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Starcraft, even if named as a "normal" RTS, was one of the first that did things like compleatly different factions, not only in units, but also in building.monnes said:
Most RTS now follow a technic brought in by sc, and that is what I call inovation. most people won't understand it, but popuñlarity has it's causes, and SC one didn't had the best graphics
Yeah I was thinking it fitted in two nicely to be an act of idiocy. Actually I was thinking more along how the first time 'round with Gaul and Carthage etc. the Romans one...the next time../hints at Guild Wars 2.Vhite said:I know it, thats why I made that post.Sevre90210 said:
If new MMO fails then other MMOs will tear blizzard apart.
Anyway we should stop with the history lessons before we annoy non-history nerds.
I'm actually looking forward to The Old Republic as well and I'm definitely going to give it a try. But I've yet to play a bad game from Blizzard, so I have every reason to expect they'll do well. I'll certainly be disappointed if they don't, but it would seem I've had a different experience with Blizzard than you have.manythings said:
Well innovation can simply be "the introduction of something new" or "a new idea, method, or device" for doing something. You may not find the stories to be all that innovative, but the way they were told through the games and the commercial and critical success they've achieved is "innovative" in a way. They've been pretty consistent too, so it's not entirely luck. Anyway, I don't think we should get hung up on the connotation of "innovative." Yes, it commonly means "new and never-before-seen," but the writer wasn't technically wrong to use it as he did.monnes said: