Let us talk, you and I, about Blizzard

[bob1052]

Now I know there are limitations to the M.M.O.R.P.G., but if it were honestly more along the lines of Fallout or Deus Ex, or Elder Scrolls that would be better than what it is now.

Do you realize what games have/are being released recently/soon?

Fallout: New Vegas, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim.

How can you complain about Blizzard not innovating and moving onto new IPs when your examples of who Blizzard should be like are the exact same.

 

[Gemore]

They're a handful of devs not creating new IPs at the rate of a totalitarian factory. Bethesda pops in mind. Technically Valve because they didn't come up with all of their IPs since most of them came from mods but I could be spewing bullshit, prove me wrong.
Anyways you can advance the medium without creating new IPs. Picasso didn't painted with a magic marker, he did it with a common brush. Look at Warcraft 2 to 3, they looked at what was wrong with 2 and replaced it with new mechanics.

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad. It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward, and I feel the answer is, nothing.

Ive been saying this for years. Its the saem issue that CoD developers (and CoD clones have)

Did you HEAR DICE?

They want to make their game MORE like CoD

I think we do not give CoD enough credit or at least the now dead Infinity Ward. Lets have a look at CoD4, it broke the mold of WW2 FPS with something that felt fresh, granted they pioneered that WW2 genre. CoD4 did a lot of things right in my opinion, MW2 expanded on the formula because why fix what isn't broken.

I really lean more to the idea they refined it, not expanded. Guns still kill quickly, they just took longer to unlock. Blizzard, as the OP says, does the same thing. They refine, and they refine, and then they refine some more. Points to CoD4. Everything else, in my opinion, is not new.

And that's okay. The industry DOES need, does wnat games that are just refined better. The problem is that they keep using the same formula and it KEEPS being succesful. Even that would be ok if it wasnt making other developers follow suit

MW2 did more than "guns still kill quickly". You get customizable killstreaks and "pro" perks which is expanded on what made the original great, just to name a few. I really wouldn't count WaW and BLops as proper CoD games since they are generally not good.
Blizzard does A LOT more than refine (Updates do not count because that is the whole damn point of updates). Here are screens of Warcraft 3 in a neat animated .gif

Spoiler

And here is the next game in the series, World of Warcraft

Spoiler

And to the argument of "CoD clones" killing the industry, you forget this is a business and devs need to make money so they start off with something safe maybe to get funding(Or not). Maybe once they get the money they can take more risks.
That being said I cant count more than a handful of "CoD clones", I could be crazy though.

Blizzard is making crap tones of money and they arent being particularly original. WoW's mechanics were NOT new, they were just refined - some would say perfection, i substitutively disgaree but thats not important. When blizzard went from RTS to MMO, they were not trying somethin new, not in the context we are talking about. they tried something new for the company. But WoW was not the first MMO that had you spamming 3 buttons to gather ten rat skins, and it wasnt the last. And however you look at it, just like CoD, there are many clones and many of them suck.

Similarly, perks didnt really change the game at all. They only made subtle differences that, lets face it as fun as it was, only really affected the competitive play.

As i said, I have nothing against people refining their game. But again, to go back to DICE

They KNOW their battlefield games are successful, FOR BEING BATTLEFIELD. They HAVE money to, perhaps not try new thing, but at LEAST stick to their formula that separates them from CoD.

 

[acosn]

Reason one: They've not produced anything new since 2001, and I'm being generous. By new I mean a new intellectual property (I.P.). Everything they have produced since Diablo has been a sequel expansion MMO-ification of some old property that has done successfully well. Think about it. Starcraft and its expansions, Diablo and its sequel, Warcraft and subsequent installments. Now, I'm not one to go bashing sequels. I like some of them, I hate some of them. That's not the point. The point is Blizzard is trying desperately to stay where it can make the most money for the minimum amount of creativity. I say if you're one of those people who think that games are joining the echelons of mediums that are considered art you should abandon Blizzard.

If it were any other company you'd ignore this, but your average studio produces about as much as Blizzard in terms of new IPs. Blizzard cans more games than your average studio, and they make an effort to innovate within rather than without, which is going to strike people as odd. WC3 fundamentally plays differently from WC2. SC2 fundamentally plays differently than SC1. WoW is completely outside the bounds of an RTS so it's not even really applicable.

Creatively Blizzard spends a lot of time inventing the wheel so that they don't need to do it again. SC had a 3 year development cycle, which is all but unheard of considering it's 2d sprite roots. WoW spent 5 years in development before being released. SC2 occupied some state of development / development hell for 7 years before being released. I don't think it's adequate to say that Blizzard is trying to minimize costs and maximize profits considering just how much time they sink into their games. It's not even their roots- before they were acquired by Davidson they were literally almost always just a few weeks short of being bankrupt.

Some people say, "I wish every company was like Blizzard. They refine their games, releasing only when ready so that it is perfect." Well, champ, I'm going to present to you the other edge of that sword. Refining is all well and good, but honestly if every game was like Blizzard I sincerely doubt we'd have 3-D gaming, I doubt we would have 2.5-D gaming either. Sure Blizzard's business model is pure gold. They rake in what has to be millions on a bad year. However, in innovation, in pushing the envelope, and in general Blizzard might as well be trying to fight off guns with swords. Sure it works for a little while in real life (and works really well in Final Fantasy) but eventually the guy who jumps on this newfangled gun is going to walk away a winner. Just ask Japan, Montezuma, and a whole slew of other people.

If you honestly argue that 3D gaming is a universal good I'd point you to the numerous franchises that either sank, or took a black spot because they felt like they had to make the jump to 3D only to discover it sucked. Blizzard's never been on the cutting edge of graphics. They never implemented unnecessary jumps and they recognized that you can do more by simply using old graphics effectively. 5 years ago when WoW came out its graphics were obsolete by 5 years. 5 years later it still looks good. SC still looks good. D2 still looks good. Very few games ever thought they could make money on good graphics, and fewer still actually made it work. The games we revere despite them being 20+ years old we liked because of something other than graphics.

Maybe that's an unfair comparison... to the indigenous people. They didn't know this gun was out here history shows that people learned to use them really quickly. Blizzard on the other hand jams its fingers in its ears and says, "We don't need you we just need the Skinner Box!"
If any of you are wondering there is a "Extra Credits" that deals with this issue. Look it up if you're interested. Blizzard's unwillingness to change is also shown in their inability to embrace other platforms. I will cite Mr. MovieBob's "The Big Picture" episode "The P.C. Gamer is Dead--Long Live the P.C. Gamer" as supporting opinion.

You really do not know your history. At all. It took humans almost 1000 years to take gun powder and turn it into a weapon that was so definitive that it dominated the breadth of arms used on the battle field.

Blizzard doesn't implement skinner box techniques often outside of WoW.

Moviebob knows piss little about PC gaming. This is actually generally considered the best time for PC gaming we've seen in years.

Blizzard doesn't make games for other platforms because it doesn't work well with their design philosophy. SC: Ghost took so long to make that they were using "obsolete" technology to make a game that was ultimately going to be released on systems that didn't exist when work first began. That's not an unwillingness to adapt, that's an inability, and I'd argue that its working quite fine for them. Blizzard doesn't need console gaming.

I also hear tell of a new M.M.O.R.P.G. that Blizzard is working on. Now, I might be wrong, I often am. No one is perfect, but do you really think their new M.M.O.R.P.G. is going to vary greatly from W.O.W. in anything mechanical. I doubt it. Doing that would be killing the golden goose 101.

Completely deviates from your argument.

So Blizzard sticks with what's safe, they make oodles of money for it, and they hide behind the guise of polish. Okay, I can see that. However, do you think any other company could go thirteen years without release in new game and still stay in the black? I don't. Alright, so they make a lot of money from W.O.W., and this I have established is basically learned Skinner-esque behavior. If I let this slide, and for the sake of argument I will, then they're creating a billion dollars a year in revenue a year. So lets be fair. Let's take out funding for new projects, overhead, bonuses, and even though it's technically overhead costs, maintenance on servers, oh I'm feeling philanthropic as well. Let's throw in charities. Even if that leaves them with ten million dollars a year couldn't they push that into some kind of branch or independent label, a studio, something? So, yes they are the worse thing for the modern movements in gaming. EA at least has some small studios that occasionally produce something new and good. Why can't Blizzard do the same. They're like the E. Scrooge of the video game world and there's not any Jacob Marley in sight.

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad. It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward, and I feel the answer is, nothing.

I find it hilarious that you try to compare a publisher to a studio. Yes, EA has small studios that make original IPs occasionally. They're also notorious for killing those same studios. Blizzard owns no sub-studios.

You haven't made a strong argument, you didn't demonstrate that what Blizzard does is a problem, and you fail to sufficiently back up your points.

 

[Inkidu]

My response to every last one of your points is....so?

Seriously, mate. I'm a debater. Make me care. Impact this shit. Why does any of it matter?

You say they don't innovate, but they made every genre that they compete in what it is today. That's innovation at it's core.

You say that their new MMO(Which refutes your first point) isn't going to vary from Wow, since that would kill the golden goose, but that's the exact opposite of economic logic. If they make it similar to WoW, then everyone who plays WoW and is getting tired of it will jump ship. If they make it for an entirely different market, with entirely different mechanics, then not only do they save their WoW market(as they already have said they plan to do), but they make a new market to dominate in.

Calling Blizzard Scrooge is just a downright falsehood. Not only are they trying to "spread the wealth" as it were by creating a teaching studio, but they don't skimp on free content either. Frankly, they're pretty damn reasonable when it comes to pricing.

In short: Most of your statements don't fit the facts, the rest contradict each other and have no real impact to them.

Blizzard is possibly the worst thing for the video game industry today, and I sincerely wish it would fall under new management or go out of business.

I'm going to wait for the inner and outer raging to die out. So everyone who is actually interested is still here and the hardcore, never-say-die fans have left. Super.

Reason one: They've not produced anything new since 2001, and I'm being generous. By new I mean a new intellectual property (I.P.). Everything they have produced since Diablo has been a sequel expansion MMO-ification of some old property that has done successfully well. Think about it. Starcraft and its expansions, Diablo and its sequel, Warcraft and subsequent installments. Now, I'm not one to go bashing sequels. I like some of them, I hate some of them. That's not the point. The point is Blizzard is trying desperately to stay where it can make the most money for the minimum amount of creativity. I say if you're one of those people who think that games are joining the echelons of mediums that are considered art you should abandon Blizzard.

Some people say, "I wish every company was like Blizzard. They refine their games, releasing only when ready so that it is perfect." Well, champ, I'm going to present to you the other edge of that sword. Refining is all well and good, but honestly if every game was like Blizzard I sincerely doubt we'd have 3-D gaming, I doubt we would have 2.5-D gaming either. Sure Blizzard's business model is pure gold. They rake in what has to be millions on a bad year. However, in innovation, in pushing the envelope, and in general Blizzard might as well be trying to fight off guns with swords. Sure it works for a little while in real life (and works really well in Final Fantasy) but eventually the guy who jumps on this newfangled gun is going to walk away a winner. Just ask Japan, Montezuma, and a whole slew of other people.

Maybe that's an unfair comparison... to the indigenous people. They didn't know this gun was out here history shows that people learned to use them really quickly. Blizzard on the other hand jams its fingers in its ears and says, "We don't need you we just need the Skinner Box!"
If any of you are wondering there is a "Extra Credits" that deals with this issue. Look it up if you're interested. Blizzard's unwillingness to change is also shown in their inability to embrace other platforms. I will cite Mr. MovieBob's "The Big Picture" episode "The P.C. Gamer is Dead--Long Live the P.C. Gamer" as supporting opinion.

I also hear tell of a new M.M.O.R.P.G. that Blizzard is working on. Now, I might be wrong, I often am. No one is perfect, but do you really think their new M.M.O.R.P.G. is going to vary greatly from W.O.W. in anything mechanical. I doubt it. Doing that would be killing the golden goose 101.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating the selling of bad or lazily designed games. People need to remember to take pride in doing their jobs. However, not creating anything new in an artistic medium is laziness in and of itself. I'll let you guys in on a little secret. Leonardo da Vinci never finished the "Mona Lisa". Some of you might be aware of this fact, it's there for the people who aren't. Well let's see: A man left an unpolished, unfinished piece of art to the world and to this day people of all ages and origins flock to France to see it. I like my care and polish as much as the next guy, but at some point I'm going to get bored of the same game no matter how carefully planned and flawless it appears to be.

So Blizzard sticks with what's safe, they make oodles of money for it, and they hide behind the guise of polish. Okay, I can see that. However, do you think any other company could go thirteen years without release in new game and still stay in the black? I don't. Alright, so they make a lot of money from W.O.W., and this I have established is basically learned Skinner-esque behavior. If I let this slide, and for the sake of argument I will, then they're creating a billion dollars a year in revenue a year. So lets be fair. Let's take out funding for new projects, overhead, bonuses, and even though it's technically overhead costs, maintenance on servers, oh I'm feeling philanthropic as well. Let's throw in charities. Even if that leaves them with ten million dollars a year couldn't they push that into some kind of branch or independent label, a studio, something? So, yes they are the worse thing for the modern movements in gaming. EA at least has some small studios that occasionally produce something new and good. Why can't Blizzard do the same. They're like the E. Scrooge of the video game world and there's not any Jacob Marley in sight.

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad. It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward, and I feel the answer is, nothing.

Debaters know about pathos, ethos, and logos. Let's face it you lost all three with me when you used the word shit. Despite what all the debating books say, I can't make you care. You have to do that for yourself.

 

[DocBalance]

Debaters know about pathos, ethos, and logos. Let's face it you lost all three with me when you used the word shit. Despite what all the debating books say, I can't make you care. You have to do that for yourself.

Excuse me, what?

Logos=Logic. Okay, no loss there through usage of a colloquialism meaning "excrement", which is what the majority of your post is. Refute that and then we'll have a logos clash.

Ethos: Credibility. I, for one, have played all of Blizzard's games in every last one of their iterations, while you quite clearly haven't, so Ethos goes to me as well.

Pathos: Emotional appeal. 90% of the thread is against you, and you have failed the Pathos test by failing to make me care. That is your job from the start, as the Affirmative motion of the resolution Resolved: That Blizzard Entertainment should be significantly reformed or abolished.

See, you can throw words around that you heard once to make yourself sound smart, but I do this on a professional level. I know what those words mean, I know who wrote them, and I have their every aspect drilled into my skull. Don't even start on debate theory with me, son. Now, if you'd like to actually refute my points instead of ignoring them through an incredibly flimsy straw-man, be my guest.

 

[TerranReaper]

OP's post reeks of everything that I hate that comes from Moviebob's and Extra Credit's mouth, it practically sounds word for word of what they would say in regards to something of this matter. I'm amazed and appalled to hear that people still listen to what they have to say. Moviebob especially does not know what he is talking, not that he really cares about that, as stated by himself. But this has nothing to do with Blizzard, so let's get to the real point.

In any case, I don't see why people think that stagnation in the industry is caused mainly by juggernauts such as Blizzard, maybe for MMOs, but even then, you're disregarding other MMOs that had from decent success to great success that don't follow the traditional formula that WoW has established. You also don't see many modern RTS games following Starcraft's formula either, so RTS games clearly have moved on from what Blizzard has established, regardless of the fact that they had the most success with theirs. Granted, they were never original with their ideas, I'm sure Warhammer fans can testify for this.

You say Blizzard isn't supporting games as art, even though they had no intentions of doing so to begin with. You can blatantly see in their games, namely Starcraft and WoW that they are pushing for games to be a social activity and to be a sport. To some extent, they succeeded in that attempt. At the expense of going off-topic, games do not necessarily have to become an art form in order for it to advance. They don't need to be art and it is also not the only way for it progress.

 

[Inkidu]

Now I know there are limitations to the M.M.O.R.P.G., but if it were honestly more along the lines of Fallout or Deus Ex, or Elder Scrolls that would be better than what it is now.

Do you realize what games have/are being released recently/soon?

Fallout: New Vegas, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim.

How can you complain about Blizzard not innovating and moving onto new IPs when your examples of who Blizzard should be like are the exact same.

That's one's actually quite logical. I can't compare apples to unobtainium. (A fictions substance of awesome capability, not the Avatar stuff.)

That is to say. I could say they should be more like X, X, and, Y but good example already exist. Maybe I should say the Witcher too, but that has a sequel coming out too. Look eventually I'm going to step in familiar territory. It's inevitable, but does that mean Blizzard gets to make the same game with more tweaks and better graphics. I don't think so, change up the game plan do something else. Even if it has elements others have seen before it's the little changes to formula. Look at Halo it was a FPS but what did it have? A rechargeable shied. I think you're trying to get me on the "nothing is original" argument, but that doesn't excuse writers from writing books, or directors from making film.

I could probably detail a whole spiel about how all games are basically one of three or four types, but I'm not going to that's really over simplification.

 

[Pyro Paul]

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad. It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward, and I feel the answer is, nothing.

It is companies like Blizzard that keep the industry moving forward.

Your problem is that you're looking for iconic 'change the course of history as we know it!' events, and that isn't going to happen... However Blizzard is pushing the industry forward quiet well in developing new mechanics and solutions to problems that plauge many other video games.

Key problems like how to save bandwidth and provide a compelling experience that doesn't melt your processor. Case in point, With the new cataclysm expansion release they created an evolving story which uses 'NPC Phase Instance'. In this, only the NPCs appear and disappear according to your quest progress rather then having huge areas of the world map.

This undoubtably conserves the bandwidth of the servers while also allows players to acctually feel like the world around them is changing and evolving due to their actions. And though while such a solution isn't as innovative or game changing as a physics engine in some other games, it is progressing the industry forward.

 

[Ghengis John]

Blizzard is possibly the worst thing for the video game industry today, and I sincerely wish it would fall under new management or go out of business.

Snip

People are going to attack you because you're essentially telling their pusher to get out of town, and they think they like their fix. That said, the real talent at blizzard all left long ago. Your opinion will not be popular, but I salute it.

I would like to say though that one thing that they do provide in world of warcraft at least is a segue title for casual to hardcore gamers. Other than that I agree.

 

[Inkidu]

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad. It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward, and I feel the answer is, nothing.

It is companies like Blizzard that keep the industry moving forward.

Your problem is that you're looking for iconic 'change the course of history as we know it!' events, and that isn't going to happen... However Blizzard is pushing the industry forward quiet well in developing new mechanics and solutions to problems that plauge many other video games.

Key problems like how to save bandwidth and provide a compelling experience that doesn't melt your processor. Case in point, With the new cataclysm expansion release they created an evolving story which uses 'NPC Phase Instance'. In this, only the NPCs appear and disappear according to your quest progress rather then having huge areas of the world map.

This undoubtably conserves the bandwidth of the servers while also allows players to acctually feel like the world around them is changing and evolving due to their actions. And though while such a solution isn't as innovative or game changing as a physics engine in some other games, it is progressing the industry forward.

Well yes they were moving it forward for a time where the biggest and best hardware/graphics/thing was the goal. However, the cost-to-powerhouse ratio is becoming less and less profitable. The next big or subtle thing will soon not lie in processor power or even bandwidth. It's going to lie in what people do with what they have not where it can go.

 

[Inkidu]

Blizzard is possibly the worst thing for the video game industry today, and I sincerely wish it would fall under new management or go out of business.

Snip

People are going to attack you because you're essentially telling their pusher to get out of town, and they think they like their fix. That said, the real talent at blizzard all left long ago. Your opinion will not be popular, but I salute it.

Well, thank you very much. I thought I should just hand out sticks and let them go to town.

Ironically, I was trying to avoid making references to addiction.

 

[Wayneguard]

Some people say, "I wish every company was like Blizzard. They refine their games, releasing only when ready so that it is perfect." Well, champ, I'm going to present to you the other edge of that sword. Refining is all well and good, but honestly if every game was like Blizzard I sincerely doubt we'd have 3-D gaming, I doubt we would have 2.5-D gaming either.

The irony here is that 3-d has severely limited both diablo 3 and starcraft 2. Neither of those games have any gameplay aspects that require 3-d and had blizzard opted for a 2-d, pre-rendered gameworld, they would look much, much prettier (and closer to their originals to boot).

 

[Amishdemon]

I say they need to make something other than an RTS or MMORPG.

STARCRAFT: GHOST! COME BACK TO ME! I'LL BUY 5 COPIES OF YOU, I PROMISE! ;~;

you do realize plenty of other devs make on genre of game right?

 

[Inkidu]

Some people say, "I wish every company was like Blizzard. They refine their games, releasing only when ready so that it is perfect." Well, champ, I'm going to present to you the other edge of that sword. Refining is all well and good, but honestly if every game was like Blizzard I sincerely doubt we'd have 3-D gaming, I doubt we would have 2.5-D gaming either.

The irony here is that 3-d has severely limited both diablo 3 and starcraft 2. Neither of those games have any gameplay aspects that require 3-d and had blizzard opted for a 2-d, pre-rendered gameworld, they would look much, much prettier (and closer to their originals to boot).

Okay I would hate for this to go on: Not 3D glasses wearing 3D. 3D rendered worlds which are still technically 2D. Really, I thought that was clear because of the 2.5-D in the next sentence. I don't like the "3D" thing everyone's getting on these days either. I think it's just a gimmick from the 50s making it's cyclical round in fashion.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Honestly I'd hate Nintendo more than Blizzard for the problem of sticking to their old IPs and not making anything new.

Blizzard might not come up with too many new ideas, but at least their games are satisfactory. I'm still waiting for Diablo 3.

 

[theheroofaction]

First off you've got a self contradiction

Reason one: They've not produced anything new since 2001,

and yet Down here, oh, suddenly they DO have something new

I also hear tell of a new M.M.O.R.P.G. that Blizzard is working on

Now, down here you're just misinformed.

Blizzard on the other hand jams its fingers in its ears and says, "We don't need you we just need the Skinner Box!"

Have you even played their rts offerings, they don't use a skinner box at all.

Now then, here you distort what someone else is saying

I will cite Mr. MovieBob's "The Big Picture" episode "The P.C. Gamer is Dead--Long Live the P.C. Gamer" as supporting opinion.

What bob was saying actually had nothing to do with gaming itself, but rather the end of the giant metal brick computer.

and yay another quote

It's not a question of whether or not I like Blizzard games, it's not a question of are Blizzard's games good or bad It's a question of what is Blizzard doing to move the industry forward

Okay first off blizzard revolutionized the way rts' are made
Lastly, you act as if our industry is some kind of all encompassing blob When it's more like a bacteria filled pond.

 

[RA92]

Blizzard and Valve are both popular PC developers despite their long development cycles. Why?

It's because they don't try to shove down sequels down our throats annually that barely differ from their predecessors. Instead, they create games with long-lasting appeal and support them extensively all the way.

And I'm glad Blizzard isn't going multi-platform. Too many franchises have been ruined while trying to accommodate for the limitations of consoles. If anything, it only makes Blizzard's resolve stronger.

 

[Inkidu]

Honestly I'd hate Nintendo more than Blizzard for the problem of sticking to their old IPs and not making anything new.

Blizzard might not come up with too many new ideas, but at least their games are satisfactory. I'm still waiting for Diablo 3.

I would too, but at least Nintendo took a gamble on the Wii, and the new market.

Also from above,I honestly don't believe in the casual/hardcore fight. It's futile. It's like saying someone's a hardcore reader because they actually read two Shakespeare plays and fourteen sonnets.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Honestly I'd hate Nintendo more than Blizzard for the problem of sticking to their old IPs and not making anything new.

Blizzard might not come up with too many new ideas, but at least their games are satisfactory. I'm still waiting for Diablo 3.

I would too, but at least Nintendo took a gamble on the Wii, and the new market.

Also from above,I honestly don't believe in the casual/hardcore fight. It's futile. It's like saying someone's a hardcore reader because they actually read two Shakespeare plays and fourteen sonnets.

I understand what you're saying.

My complaint is that we can't really use the 'what game is most played?' thing to determine the best game, short reason: Farmville; long reason: games that are marketed to all audiences instead of people who have gaming experience.

It's somewhat annoying because I know there's probably more money to be made from making easier, player-friendly games rather than games that improve upon what we've been doing for the past 20 years(at least, the games that I played).

I don't hate it, but things like this aren't exactly improving games in general, I don't too many people are going to step out of their comfort zone and give games a chance because they play Farmville on the weekends.

 

[The Gnome King]

STUFF!

No 3D gaming? I don't think that would be a huge loss. Gives me a headache. Other people can enjoy it all they want as long as they still keep making games I can play on my nice 2D monitor.

As for your other points, Blizzard is a company. A hugely, hugely successful company. They don't answer to you unless you're a shareholder and - going out on a limb here - I'm going to assume you don't own any shares. So...

All you can do is vote with your wallet. Don't buy their games. Me, I'll keep playing WoW (along with other MMOs ranging from Dungeons & Dragons Online to Fallen Earth), Starcraft 2 which is hugely and amazingly fun, and waiting for Diablo 3 to come out along with millions of other people.

Somehow, I think Blizzard will survive your wrath.