http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/967...y-dlc-blizzard
Includes Chris Metzen admitting WoL wasn't as good in hindsight as it seemed at the time.
It also includes a big CALLED IT on my end about Amon. Spoiler alert.
Printable View
http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/967...y-dlc-blizzard
Includes Chris Metzen admitting WoL wasn't as good in hindsight as it seemed at the time.
It also includes a big CALLED IT on my end about Amon. Spoiler alert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muspelli
Holy shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metzen
And the explanation for why Blizzard's writing has sucked since 2004 has been realized. That sounds like it would have been way cooler/more interesting than what we got. And why Wings of Liberty is so schizophrenic.
I kinda get that mentality the whole team had TBH.
Still, if they get around to novelizing the series, WRITE IT THAT WAY. The Rebel Yell and Overmind novelizations differed rather significantly from the games, why not these ones too?
The whole idea that you need a novelization to do complex ideas, or that it HAS to appeal to the lowest common denominator and be a total self-affirming masturbatory experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muspelli
All the best video games I know have incredibly engrossing experiences that make you feel small and insignificant, but powerful and able to overcome that fact.
MGS2, MGS3, Arkham City, Silent Hill 2...
All of these put the character through the ringer and make them feel damaged and it's so much more interesting and different than just seeing the same message over and over again.
I just think it's so much more satisfying to watch a character overcome legitimate adversity than it is to see a foregone conclusion.
I said I get the logic and mentality, not that I agree with it :P. Still, they've acknowledged the problem. That bodes well for LotV and the DLC campaigns at any rate.
I don't know whether this is incredibly retarded or dead on true. The problem with complaining about dumbing down something for the common denominator is that it just might be right.Quote:
"In developing these fictions for games, you gotta remember, people just want to feel powerful and effective."
I wasn't meaning to argue with you. Though it doesn't sound like they're acknowledging the problem so much as talking about a stage of their development where they toyed with making the hero fail, and then decided against it because it's not what people want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muspelli
Honestly, though, everything from LotV so far has been miles ahead of HotS from a story perspective, so I'm down.
It probably is true that that's what people THINK they want. It doesn't mean it's what they ultimately need or that it's what will make the game's story good or memorable.Quote:
I don't know whether this is incredibly retarded or dead on true. The problem with complaining about dumbing down something for the common denominator is that it just might be right.
I tend to over-analyze A LOT, and so I have a lot of different possibiltes I float around in my head, and whenever one of them is somewhat true I yell "AHA GOTCHA"!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
But to be honest, this was kind of what I believed, at least to an extent, I think often problems like this are a result of lack of due dilligence, I.E, not giving the characters the dialogue they need, the atmosphere, etc, and just focusing on stuff like that, that players dont' want to sit through the story, but the thing is, (and I think you're right in some ways to be sure), people often really DO sit through the story, and WON'T mind a few extra minutes of dialogue. It frustruates me to no end that this philopshy has taken root, it's extremely harmful, and ironically it ends up probably hurting the gameplay by itself in some ways because the developers constantly have to contort the missions around the story which keeps developing continuity issues.
I've been thinking about this personally, I think it's true that often the boring, non-glamorous explanation for the problem is the right one, and that its also often true that the boring, non-glamorous (perhaps initially), steady method is the one that works. So what do yoiu think (and anyone else who wants to join in PLEASE feel free) if we as a forum try to address how the plot plays out gameplay wise, so tha we can post our feedback collectively to try and maybe get ONE developer to see it, and I know it's a vague possibly false hope but maybe even Chris Metzen will see it as well, and we can slowly build up that foundation again, maybe, I'd just personally be so happy if all these story problems didn't persist, if the universe was hold and true and even outmatched the original by a mile.
To be completely honest
Sorry 'bout that. Apparently been confrontational as shit lately even when I'm not meaning to be. I was just saying, I get their logic, and them acknowledging it is a good sign.
Also, this IS me being bitchy, but not to anyone here. People are actually upset DLC campaigns that will cost thousands of dollars to make will cost money to play. That's all that needs saying.
Ugh. With LotV only a couple days away, I'll try to avoid any spoilers. But the history surrounding the ups and downs of the creative process are very interesting to read about.
Having even thought about the release until now because of "reasons" but now the hype is setting in. Dare a jaded fan dream of a worthy ending?
A bit of the respect I had for Metzen has been restored. I consider this a personal victory after my years of trying to get the community to adopt higher standards for storytelling.
I'm actually kind of excited about these. Gameplay has been the most rewarding experience of the campaign. Get more of that in bite sized chunks over a period of time would be great, if they can keep it up. Holding that experience back because of a story I no longer care about is stupid. Give me more great game play wrapped up in simple mission structures and I'll be happy ... for a reasonable price.Quote:
Also, this IS me being bitchy, but not to anyone here. People are actually upset DLC campaigns that will cost thousands of dollars to make will cost money to play. That's all that needs saying.
I told you one day your missionary work would be rewarded.Quote:
A bit of the respect I had for Metzen has been restored. I consider this a personal victory after my years of trying to get the community to adopt higher standards for storytelling.
In my opinion, when it comes to creating intellectual property(stories in this case), you need a single vision originating from one creator. Everyone else in the team just add to that idea but never change it. I think SC2 is the perfect example of someone having a vision and then people messing around with it too much. Maybe the whole kerri + weak, alcoholic jim romance thing could have worked out. It certainly didn't with the way it was executed though.
Acknowledging the problem is only the starting point. Blizzard admitted similarly back at Blizzcon 2014Quote:
Originally Posted by Muspelli
I actually used to know a guy with some indie development experience, he stresses this strongly.Quote:
In my opinion, when it comes to creating intellectual property(stories in this case), you need a single vision originating from one creator.
Speaking as a fanfic writer who's been writing for 10 years, I definitely feel for the guy. It's nothing to do with SC2's storytelling itself, it's just hindsight. You think back on your old stories and see subplots you didn't develop properly, parts you wish you had cut and cut stuff you should have included. And I know other writers who feel the same about their works. We're our own worst critics, and we put ourselves on the line with our work, and it doesn't always work out.
I agree this bodes well for the end of the series. And if nothing else, Metzen realizes SC2's story has had problems. I've always been of the opinion some of the cut systems and story elements seemed perfectly fine (like being able to purchase new units instead of just getting them willy-nilly).
It seems Metzen did actually want some seriousness and ramifications reflected off of Raynor's alcholism but the team disagreed because they wanted to make the player feel empowered. This goes to show how the concept of a player character (like in Sc1) would have solved both of these problems.
After reading this article, it's making me wonder what their recollections of HotS as a story are though. It's total absence of a reference beyond namechecking it and mentioning Kerrigan seemed odd. I found it quite peculiar how they talk about how Sc2 is about Raynor and Kerrigan - the human angle - and then acknowledging how different the Protoss can potentially be yet focus their attention on it as the last entry. The reason for this, they say, is to not rob us off the Protoss experience. I wonder if they could say that of HotS and whether that really encapsulated the Zerg experience/ethos when it really was about a particular humans angle.
Strangely enough, I'm actually in full support for the smaller story packs they're releasing after LotV. They seem to be focussing on smaller and more intimate stories that aren't universe-shaking and full of wanton epicness but contribute to the world-building more than anything else. As their short stories have shown, it seems to be a (and arguably only, insofar as what we've had tp put up with in the games themselves) particular strength they have had in terms of story development and it's wise for them to try and capitalise on that.
Same, and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Mission packs are neat.
Not going to spend a cent on them though.
I remember a spooky time when Blizzard-made campaign packs were free (you already bought the game)
Oh well.
Can I ask why people are so angry about paid DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it, simple as that. But if Blizzard is gonna keep creative guys working on SC2 for years, including making new models, bringing in voice actors, and so forth, it's stupid to expect to do it for free. People gotta eat, and people should get paid for their work.
Because modern gamers are supremely entitled and have no idea how running a business works, I'd say. But who knows? Maybe an argument in favour of these being entirely free will come forth that is based in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
Gamers are notoriously bad about economics. And, yes, they are entitled. But they also seem to think that everyone game company is rolling in the dough. Gaming is one of the lesser profitable industries of its size, actually.And only a few major companies can be so to be really making a lot of money. DLC is a way to cope with increased costs by getting revenue from the people who are willing to pay more. It's not ripping people off. Remember, NES and SNES games cost more, had far less content, and much smaller budgets. Going by that logic, NES games were highway robbery.
Gaming has reached an impasse. Gamers as a whole refuse to spend more than 60$ for a brand new AAA game, but also demand quick updates that exponentially increase the costs of gaming. How do you make up the difference? DLC, of course.
That being said. I don't buy DLC. Either I buy it when it is all released in a final physical copy or a bootleg it because fuck that shit :D
Let's just say this can be abused WAY too easily for money grabbing and company greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
Yeah, and if they do that, bitch, and don't buy any of it. Everything they've shown us so far suggests it's not being done that way. It's either cosmetics which you have no right to complain about spending money on because they are completely pointless (skins and advisors) or singleplayer stuff that they have every right to charge money for.
You can chose to buy it don't. Retards buy 200$ Gucci sun glasses. I don't. Some people buy 10$ DLC. I don't. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok
Given the industry trend to monetize everything, and that fact that there was so many opportunities and things to monetize in SC2, the fact that they haven't is one of the few compliments I have for recent Blizzard.
Also, stop capitalizing RANDOM words. I know it's some kind of unconscious tick, but at least switch it up with bold and italics everything now and then.
I don't have plans to buy it, not just yet anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muspelli
You'll buy it. Don't even lie.
It's probably gonna be the first DLC I buy tbh or at least the first DLC I buy individually(vs being part of an ''extended edition'').
I get the whole ''devs gotta eat'' thing but I personally prefer DLC being all neatly packaged in one big expansion. Then again, I'm also the kind of person that buy stuff in bulk at costco so...
I play Final Fantasy. Their Dissidia 012 game a few years ago for PSP had DLC, 99 cents for new character costumes, and 99 cents for song packs of four or five extra soundtracks for fights. I bought a few and didn't buy the rest, no problem.
Then came All The Bravest for smartphones, which allowed you to buy "premium" guest characters for 99 cents each. But when you choose to do so, the character you get is random from 35. Wanna play as a specific character? Too bad, roll the dice. They also released Theatrhythm, a rhythm game for 3DS. The 3DS has DLC songs for 99 cents each, totalling 50 bucks. The iOS port of the game, though, made almost all the songs in the base 3DS game DLC too, for a total of $150 bucks to unlock all the songs.
TL;DR - can this system be abused? No question. Does Blizzard intend to? I see no evidence of such just on the announcement alone.
I buy skins from league of legends, digital deluxe editions, dlc from certain games (like the Alien Isolation xtra content). This is not going to be an expense im not unwilling to pay. Its only when its crap like Call of Duty or Starwars: old republic, that make it punishing to try to play the game for free that I'll object and bow out.
This right here. Tim Mortem (Lead Game Producer) voiced a very strategic approach towards the monetizing of LotV. Missions Packs will try to sustain themselves. While micro-transactions and curator company shares will sustain the rest of the full game (multiplayer, co-op missions).Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
Certainly, Blizzard has been quite busy thinking about the future of SC2 for quite a while. They know the risks of paid content. They also know the risks of paid mods. A particular ability I admire from Blizzard is that they wait for someone else to take the first step and learn from competitor's mistakes.
My only fear lies within the Co-op missions. Maybe they will charge for early access to missions or commanders, but the game mode needs to be free if they really want to attract new casual players.
No I won't. Not just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
This is me in a nutshell.Quote:
I get the whole ''devs gotta eat'' thing but I personally prefer DLC being all neatly packaged in one big expansion. Then again, I'm also the kind of person that buy stuff in bulk at costco so...
Yes, yes you WILL.Quote:
No I won't. Not just yet.
It's a shame the players don't seem to recognize this. Many I spoke to online said this is nothing more than Blizzard stalling simply for the hell of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blade
Yea, it's bad; but we can all relate to this feeling. I do not blame these players. Why would you trust a company's vote for change when they just became transparent after 5 years after the original release? Depending on who you are, you've been on the StarCraft II veteran train for 3-8 years. During that time: no core mechanic changed, the apparent focus of development was multiplayer, and the community only seemed to dilute.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok
"Legacy of the Void" is to SC2 as "Reaper of Souls" was for D3. The only difference is that we have been waiting for this for five years as opposed to two.
Personal Rant:
Hidden Content:
Guilty as charged. If I had the mental capacity to understand SC2's editor, I'd have remade the Mar Sara Missions 4 years ago like I wanted to.Quote:
How many projects lie dead in a hard drive back at home.
But it's not just SC2 driving people away. People grow up, they change, they move on. I still play SC2, I'm just not into the series as much as I was once. Happens all the time.
It's also due to the incompetence of the developers. From what's been seen it appears there's only going to be 19 missions to LotV. That means instead of doing what the community wanted after HotS's 20 mission campaign was too short, they decided to do the OPPOSITE and make LotV even shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
I'm also worried about the number of missions. While Blizzard seems to perpetuate the claim that LotV will surpass WoL and HotS in terms of number of missions, we've been presented with very little proof of that.Quote:
From what's been seen it appears there's only going to be 19 missions to LotV.
The way I see it is like this: when they said it'd be longer than HotS, that meant including the 3 prologue missions and 3 epilogue missions. Therefore, if we do that, then the total would be 25. To me however, the prologue missions don't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visions of Khas