Hero Classes dead in the water - Page 5

MinionOfCthulhu · 07-02-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digo

# Dressing room system. Admit it. You love this feature.

Okay, okay, I admit it! Sometimes I dress my dwarf rogue up in mage armor and pretend dwarf mages are still in game! Why, Blizzard, why did you have to take that away from me!?

Scaffa · 07-02-2006, 07:56 AM

If hero classes ever do make it in, i'm fairly sure Blizz will make it so it involves raiding zones. So Johnny casuals gonna go even more apeshit.

Digo · 07-02-2006, 07:57 AM

Oh, so now it's the lack of funding that makes a game good or successful! Once upon a time there were these guys named Carmack and Romero who started in a tiny little room making this little game called "Doom" on a shoestring budget. It's really a ridiculous story because every knows that no one can do anything innovative without a multi-million dollar budget and an international publishing house behind them. Everyone knows the game failed miserably, too.

Someday though, an MMO will arise that does away with the concept of grinds and timesinks and repetitive actions. This truly revolutionary MMO will be developed in cutting-edge laboratories under the supervision of Nobel-prize winning scientists and completely shatter all pre-existing conceptions about the genre. Society as we know it will be brought to its knees in awe. Internet messageboards everywhere will overflow with praise for this incredible game and not a single complaint will be heard. But most of all, Rob Pardo will huddle near a trash fire with Bill Gates at his side, warming their frostbitten hands, softly whimpering "Why God, why? Why didn't you grant us the vision to do something truly revolutionary?"

Arbitrary · 07-02-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digo

Oh, so now it's the lack of funding that makes a game good or successful! Once upon a time there were these guys named Carmack and Romero who started in a tiny little room making this little game called "Doom" on a shoestring budget. It's really a ridiculous story because every knows that no one can do anything innovative without a multi-million dollar budget and an international publishing house behind them. Everyone knows the game failed miserably, too.

Your ability to completely trivialize the importance of money in the creation of a competitive MMPORG these days is truely astounding.

Etadanik · 07-02-2006, 08:03 AM

Right, because Doom, written by two people, can be compared to MMOs that take hundreds of developers, tens of millions of dollars, and half a decade to develop. People in the gaming industry have been saying, for ages now, that games are getting more expensive to make and that it's put a serious damper on taking risks. But you, apparently, can walk away from all that with a simple allusion to Doom. How convenient.

Digo · 07-02-2006, 08:29 AM

Obviously, it requires a vast staff of developers to create an MMO, but that is not the point.

The point is, revolutionary ideas and systems can arise anywhere. The greater question, which seems to escape some people here, is whether or not those systems will be fun or even work. Horizons -- proclaimed as the most innovative MMO ever -- didn't fail because it lacked funding or publishing power. It failed because it wasn't fun and the systems were complete shit. edit: Even if Blizzard were to take this approach you're describing and go after something truly innovative, would it be? Would it even be fun? Does having more money increase the likelihood it will be fun?

The Sims online was pretty innovative in concept but it failed miserably. Why? It wasn't fun. Ever heard of Animal Crossing? Same basic concept as Sims, but vastly more successful because the mechanics were actually fun.

What exactly do you think will happen to MMOs that can be considered revolutionary without creating an entirely new genre? USB headsets and body electrodes that physically shock you when you get hit in combat? FPS, real-time military campaigns in a persistent world? That's been done with Planetside.

It's not that Blizzard can't produce innovation (though they seldom do, they just refine them, so I don't understand why anyone's complaining anyway) it's that the fantasy RPG genre of MMOs has reached a plateau. You're not going to revolutionize this genre, you can only create a new one.

If Blizzard were to make a Starcraft MMO it'd just be a reincarnation of Planetside only polished. Wolfenstein was, as far as I know, the first FPS, and so it was revolutionary. Has there been anything since in the FPS genre since that can truly be called revolutionary? Maybe Counterstrike or Tribes in terms of making FPS's multiplayer, but other than that, I can't think of anything. Originality and revolutions happen once in a blue moon, almost to the point of being a lie. It's all about presentation.

Ludwigvan · 07-02-2006, 08:39 AM

You're absolutely right. Blizzard, a company known for RTS's didn't take a chance by creating an MMO out of it's least popular franchise.

What the fuck is your real argument here?
Are you trying to say WoW is a cookie cutter EQ? It's identical to all other MMORPGs because you get items and have to level? It's not creative because it only furthers the storline of an already existing franchise?
So far here's what I see.

"Blizzard is a bunch of lazy slobs!"
"But they implemented new raid content, improved their raid UI and over all accessibility of features in game."
"But they aren't revolutionary!"
"I really don't understand. What IS revolutionary?"
"They just fuck hookers on piles of money instead of fixing my broke ass itemization and class balance. IM A FUCKING ARM CHAIR DEVELOPER! GIVE ME MY HOOKER AND PILE OF MONEY!"

Sorry, I think that was my inner child.

Are you really just pissed because they mentioned the word "Hero Class" way back in beta, and now they've said "yeah, we liked the idea, but we still don't know what we're going to do with it. Sorry." I don't recall any "We promise to have hero class, and we promise to have siege weapons. Just because a developer gets excited and mentions an idea they have doesn't mean it'll be delievered. Fable anyone? Most developers don't communicate with the community for that reason. If they mention they drew a picture of a horsey with a lance the frothing masses would take it as gospel and nay sayers will scream "I told you so! Burn motherfucker BURN!"
They have the best MMO on the market. That's not much really, it's like being the valadictorian of summer school when you're 25. You just have to do something right.

Soygen · 07-02-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ludwigvan

You're absolutely right. Blizzard, a company known for RTS's didn't take a chance by creating an MMO out of it's least popular franchise.

Slow down there. Least popular franchise in Blizzard terms is still insanely popular. Even then I don't know if I would call WC their least popular property.

Digo · 07-02-2006, 08:47 AM

The WC RTS games (there were three) sold fewer boxes than Starcraft (which only had 1 game) or Diablo and all its expansions.

Soygen · 07-02-2006, 08:51 AM

Ok, but it was still quite popular. I really don't think Blizzard took much of a chance with WoW, which was the argument the person I quoted was making. There is always an element of risk when developing any game, but they used a tried and true property(no matter how much better their other games did). If they made an MMO based on a completely new story/lore/etc then maybe it would have been risky, but even then, they had a very large and loyal fanbase who would have been excited, no matter the actual content.

Not to mention, I still don't think WC is their least popular property. http://www.blizzard.com/blizzclassic/

Itzena · 07-02-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etadanik

Name one "revolutionary" game backed by the same amount resources as WoW.

Certainly

Digo · 07-02-2006, 08:57 AM

The Matrix.
Starwars.
Lord of the Rings.

All MMOs and all complete shit.

Would you say that their developers weren't taking a risk because of the popularity? They knew millions of people would buy them based on IP alone? Maybe a few did, but the games were failures because of poorly implemented systems and just plain sucking.

Soygen · 07-02-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digo

The Matrix.
Starwars.
Lord of the Rings.

All MMOs and all complete shit.

Would you say that their developers weren't taking a risk because of the popularity? They knew millions of people would buy them based on IP alone? Maybe a few did, but the games were failures because of poorly implemented systems and just plain sucking.

Is this in response to me? If so, it seems you're arguing from the stance that I'm saying WoW sucks. I like WoW. I'm just saying the "risk" factor wasn't really there because it was a tried property from a development house that is known for turning out top quality material. Can the same be said for the games you just gave examples of?

Ludwigvan · 07-02-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soygen

Ok, but it was still quite popular. I really don't think Blizzard took much of a chance with WoW, which was the argument the person I quoted was making. There is always an element of risk when developing any game, but they used a tried and true property(no matter how much better their other games did). If they made an MMO based on a completely new story/lore/etc then maybe it would have been risky, but even then, they had a very large and loyal fanbase who would have been excited, no matter the actual content.

Not to mention, I still don't think WC is their least popular property. http://www.blizzard.com/blizzclassic/

just to try and make myself right: Rock 'n' Roll Racing was created by Silicon & Synapses, one of Blizzards earlier names. Also, I said Frachise, but you could Argue that The Lost Vikings are a Franchise since there are sequels.

I'll Amend it with "Least popular, current, franchise."

You could argue that Starwars has an much larger, dedicated, and established fan base, but SWG didn't pull nearly the numbers WoW did in it's first month, and continues to pull.

Soygen · 07-02-2006, 09:05 AM

Ok, so franchise = Warcraft and Diablo? Fine, you're right.

Again, my arguing about the "least popular" title was the least of the points I was trying to make. In the end, I don't really give a fuck. I just don't think WoW was breaking the mold or risky in any way. Great game. Revolutionary? Risky? Hardly. I think everyone here and pretty much everyone on the b.net boards knew it would be a hit from the day it was announced.

07-02-2006, 07:57 AM	#63 (permalink)
Digo Ad Hoc Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: orange county Posts: 1,208 +2 Internets	Oh, so now it's the lack of funding that makes a game good or successful! Once upon a time there were these guys named Carmack and Romero who started in a tiny little room making this little game called "Doom" on a shoestring budget. It's really a ridiculous story because every knows that no one can do anything innovative without a multi-million dollar budget and an international publishing house behind them. Everyone knows the game failed miserably, too. Someday though, an MMO will arise that does away with the concept of grinds and timesinks and repetitive actions. This truly revolutionary MMO will be developed in cutting-edge laboratories under the supervision of Nobel-prize winning scientists and completely shatter all pre-existing conceptions about the genre. Society as we know it will be brought to its knees in awe. Internet messageboards everywhere will overflow with praise for this incredible game and not a single complaint will be heard. But most of all, Rob Pardo will huddle near a trash fire with Bill Gates at his side, warming their frostbitten hands, softly whimpering "Why God, why? Why didn't you grant us the vision to do something truly revolutionary?" __________________ Digo \| Casual

07-02-2006, 08:29 AM	#66 (permalink)
Digo Ad Hoc Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: orange county Posts: 1,208 +2 Internets	Obviously, it requires a vast staff of developers to create an MMO, but that is not the point. The point is, revolutionary ideas and systems can arise anywhere. The greater question, which seems to escape some people here, is whether or not those systems will be fun or even work. Horizons -- proclaimed as the most innovative MMO ever -- didn't fail because it lacked funding or publishing power. It failed because it wasn't fun and the systems were complete shit. edit: Even if Blizzard were to take this approach you're describing and go after something truly innovative, would it be? Would it even be fun? Does having more money increase the likelihood it will be fun? The Sims online was pretty innovative in concept but it failed miserably. Why? It wasn't fun. Ever heard of Animal Crossing? Same basic concept as Sims, but vastly more successful because the mechanics were actually fun. What exactly do you think will happen to MMOs that can be considered revolutionary without creating an entirely new genre? USB headsets and body electrodes that physically shock you when you get hit in combat? FPS, real-time military campaigns in a persistent world? That's been done with Planetside. It's not that Blizzard can't produce innovation (though they seldom do, they just refine them, so I don't understand why anyone's complaining anyway) it's that the fantasy RPG genre of MMOs has reached a plateau. You're not going to revolutionize this genre, you can only create a new one. If Blizzard were to make a Starcraft MMO it'd just be a reincarnation of Planetside only polished. Wolfenstein was, as far as I know, the first FPS, and so it was revolutionary. Has there been anything since in the FPS genre since that can truly be called revolutionary? Maybe Counterstrike or Tribes in terms of making FPS's multiplayer, but other than that, I can't think of anything. Originality and revolutions happen once in a blue moon, almost to the point of being a lie. It's all about presentation. __________________ Digo \| Casual Last edited by Digo : 07-02-2006 at 08:32 AM.

07-02-2006, 08:47 AM	#69 (permalink)
Digo Ad Hoc Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: orange county Posts: 1,208 +2 Internets	The WC RTS games (there were three) sold fewer boxes than Starcraft (which only had 1 game) or Diablo and all its expansions. __________________ Digo \| Casual

07-02-2006, 08:57 AM	#72 (permalink)
Digo Ad Hoc Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: orange county Posts: 1,208 +2 Internets	The Matrix. Starwars. Lord of the Rings. All MMOs and all complete shit. Would you say that their developers weren't taking a risk because of the popularity? They knew millions of people would buy them based on IP alone? Maybe a few did, but the games were failures because of poorly implemented systems and just plain sucking. __________________ Digo \| Casual

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

07-02-2006, 07:56 AM	#62 (permalink)
Scaffa Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 545 +1 Internets	If hero classes ever do make it in, i'm fairly sure Blizz will make it so it involves raiding zones. So Johnny casuals gonna go even more apeshit.

07-02-2006, 08:03 AM	#65 (permalink)
Etadanik Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,643 +0 Internets	Right, because Doom, written by two people, can be compared to MMOs that take hundreds of developers, tens of millions of dollars, and half a decade to develop. People in the gaming industry have been saying, for ages now, that games are getting more expensive to make and that it's put a serious damper on taking risks. But you, apparently, can walk away from all that with a simple allusion to Doom. How convenient.

07-02-2006, 08:39 AM	#67 (permalink)
Ludwigvan Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22 +0 Internets	You're absolutely right. Blizzard, a company known for RTS's didn't take a chance by creating an MMO out of it's least popular franchise. What the fuck is your real argument here? Are you trying to say WoW is a cookie cutter EQ? It's identical to all other MMORPGs because you get items and have to level? It's not creative because it only furthers the storline of an already existing franchise? So far here's what I see. "Blizzard is a bunch of lazy slobs!" "But they implemented new raid content, improved their raid UI and over all accessibility of features in game." "But they aren't revolutionary!" "I really don't understand. What IS revolutionary?" "They just fuck hookers on piles of money instead of fixing my broke ass itemization and class balance. IM A FUCKING ARM CHAIR DEVELOPER! GIVE ME MY HOOKER AND PILE OF MONEY!" Sorry, I think that was my inner child. Are you really just pissed because they mentioned the word "Hero Class" way back in beta, and now they've said "yeah, we liked the idea, but we still don't know what we're going to do with it. Sorry." I don't recall any "We promise to have hero class, and we promise to have siege weapons. Just because a developer gets excited and mentions an idea they have doesn't mean it'll be delievered. Fable anyone? Most developers don't communicate with the community for that reason. If they mention they drew a picture of a horsey with a lance the frothing masses would take it as gospel and nay sayers will scream "I told you so! Burn motherfucker BURN!" They have the best MMO on the market. That's not much really, it's like being the valadictorian of summer school when you're 25. You just have to do something right.

07-02-2006, 08:51 AM	#70 (permalink)
Soygen 100% Pure Soy Monk Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Posts: 6,175 +19 Internets	Ok, but it was still quite popular. I really don't think Blizzard took much of a chance with WoW, which was the argument the person I quoted was making. There is always an element of risk when developing any game, but they used a tried and true property(no matter how much better their other games did). If they made an MMO based on a completely new story/lore/etc then maybe it would have been risky, but even then, they had a very large and loyal fanbase who would have been excited, no matter the actual content. Not to mention, I still don't think WC is their least popular property. http://www.blizzard.com/blizzclassic/

07-02-2006, 09:05 AM	#75 (permalink)
Soygen 100% Pure Soy Monk Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Posts: 6,175 +19 Internets	Ok, so franchise = Warcraft and Diablo? Fine, you're right. Again, my arguing about the "least popular" title was the least of the points I was trying to make. In the end, I don't really give a fuck. I just don't think WoW was breaking the mold or risky in any way. Great game. Revolutionary? Risky? Hardly. I think everyone here and pretty much everyone on the b.net boards knew it would be a hit from the day it was announced.