ciortas1 said:
Who's the most profitable developer in the world, then? Because Blizzard's making more than a billion [http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041353/wow-makes-huge-profits] dollars each year from WoW's subscriptions alone.
Well, for one thing I'd encourage you to actually investigate rather than take things at face value. The article took the lump value of 9 million people and multiplied it by the US subscription fee of 15 bucks a month.
Unfortunately the single largest source of subscribers for WoW, Asia, has an utterly different payment model because in some parts of Asia a month's pay is 15 bucks a month. They have different payment models.
I'd say having the same cartoony art style on all 3 of your franchises that used to be so different different is more of a sign of hackery and flagging that they've run out of ideas. And what you said doesn't even make sense in the first place. Having an artistically consistent franchise is a sign of hackery and no ideas? Really?
No game remains consistent in it's 3D translation from the 2D world, and big surprise Blizzard discovered that with 3D games using "cartoony" graphics means that it looks good longer. Its probably why Blizzard was literally one of the last horses out of the gate to transfer into a fully 3D engine when most of the industry was already there.
In all honesty I don't grasp this, "Cartoony" argument. If you set games that are aiming to be utterly realistic (Say, Call of Gears of Duty Wars) on one end of the spectrum, and games that are legitimately about cartoons on the other I'd put Blizzard's games smack dab in the middle.
Remember, Blizzard is going to regard those who put the 1000-ish bucks into a computer specifically for the purpose of gaming as that minority who's buying the game anyways, so they're not going to care about how it looks. They're interested in capturing the rest of their sales, and that won't be done with put-offish graphics, and style. People seem to forget that Blizzard games have never been cutting edge in terms of graphics. They're more interested in making it run on as many computers as possible.
Because you use a game to get from point A to point B? What a nonsensical point to make. You play the game to have fun, and don't you dare tell me seeing intestines flying out of enemies when you disembowel them instead of simple spurts of blood wouldn't only add to that. Don't you dare tell me actual lighting within the game wouldn't bring awesome opportunities with spell effects.
Gore for the sake of gore is an empty thing. I'm probably giving Blizzard too much credit here considering the atrocity that was the story writing for SC2, but they need to be careful about how they craft Diablo 3. The primevals are dead (Hey, maybe that's why the environments look not so hells-bellsified) and a new evil is setting up shop. Maybe disemboweling humans in the greater scheme of ending all life isn't their aim. Maybe they want to corrupt humanity? Wouldn't it make a bit less sense to have your demons romping about killing everything then?
I approach the whole issue conservatively because ultimately we don't really know enough to have any comments about it. The game is still in alpha, and blizzard is notorious for adding in those graphical effects you seem to get so hard about at the last minute. Back up to my first post- SC used to look like WC2, WC3 used to look utterly different, and WoW used to have a much less toon'd look to it.
Much in the same way you use a car to get from one place to another you use video games to have fun in place of boredom. Just because they don't do the same thing doesn't mean you can't draw analogies between them. Much like with video game graphics I'd only find myself not wanting to drive a car if it looked absolutely ugly.
And again, I already said I'm buying the game and I'm not telling anyone not to. How many times do I have to repeat this?
The community was unanimously against Starcraft 2 not having LAN for 2 years. Not a single shit was given. And for a company that prides itself on being all about the fans, that's one shit less than adequate. About the sales dropping for 2 weeks, I'd hardly believe it's anything more than a coincidence. EDIT: Actually, I have heard something about people cancelling their WoW accounts. Yet still, the Real ID feature was such an irrelevant one from a business standpoint, they basically didn't lose anything by going back on that.
Sales don't arbitrarily nose-dive like that.
And you're demonstrating exactly why your whole argument is useless. When you complain, but still buy the product you've effectively told the company that while you care, you just don't care enough to make a big deal about it. You're still buying their product, so they're not going to expend the resources exploring the, "What If?" category of what fans want.
If you do not like what a company is doing to your favorite established franchises do not buy the games.
I did exclaim that there are a bunch of pretentious people on this forum who are supposedly above graphics, doesn't surprise me one bit.
And I just love how you try to sidestep the core argument of whether the graphics are good or not by saying you don't care about them, and the art style by, well, simply ignoring what I say[footnote]Or being dismissive without addressing any actual points.[/footnote]. Good stuff. Why don't you just acknowledge what I'm saying and be on your way?
My own 2 cents about the graphics is that they look fine. Much like how SC1, WC3, and WoW looked utterly different when they were in development than they do now I acknowledge that Diablo 3 will probably also look different than it does now. Hell, even Starcraft 2's graphics weren't finalized until the beta hit, and even then the highest graphical settings hadn't even been added. I was never one to be dazzled by games that try to sell themselves on top notch graphics. In fact, I'm often wary of those games because those graphics come from somewhere and when you operate on a budget that means the money comes from somewhere else.
I'm not dodging your argument, I'm not even acknowledging it because you're trying to put the horse in front of the cart.