|||Quote:ael wont because he's a troll.
I don't remember trolling, so maybe you can show me where I did that. Every post I made was properly made and constructed. Don't trolololo me because you don't like my opinions.
I count 'convenient' and a tradeoff the following things, to name a few:
-skill points removal, both in cata and d3.
-the all-famous RMAH
-max 4 players in game
-skill slots / talent slots reduced
etc.
Now I won't post more, really because I got flamed twice now in this thread, and obviously its not me who can't reason and hold up an educated debate. Secondly these ideas were thrown around a lot now..
It doesn't take a pHD to see that blizzard would put out a game these days that chops children up, if after the trial fees they still get a hefty amount of $$. Cause, the top of their principles is that if decision excludes 80% of a certain player base, its perfectly ok as long as the other 20% makes enough income for blizzard to make up for it.
It's the one point I tried to make in this thread, so I hope I could make myself understand. If not.. well.
|||Quote:...excludes 80% of a certain player base, its perfectly ok as long as the other 20%...
Where are you getting these figures from? You talk about "educated debate", but then you invent data to suit your arguments and base your reasoning on half-baked assumptions about a game that almost no one here has actually played.
I understand that you're passionate about your views, but perhaps you should take a step back and look at things objectively?|||Here is the thing about game design. It suffers from one of the same problems that politics does.
Anyone truly qualified for the position also has the right talent set, and better advancement opportunities in another field. Therefore, most of the people that would be good at those things instead go do something else.
That means you are left with but two types of people.
1: The minority that does it because they truly do love what they are doing.
2: The majority that isn't really cut out for it.
Even if you luck out and get the first type, players almost always play the game in ways the designers did not envision. Now Blizzard is on a kick of "play it the way it's meant to be played", which is obviously brought on by WoW, which like all MMOs regards non intended playstyles as exploits. This is the absolute worst way to react to such things. So while there is nothing itself wrong with not being able to imagine every possibility in advance, there's quite a bit wrong with adopting a hostile outlook towards said other impressions. What they create is a designer vs player mentality, in which players actively exploit the hell out of the game, but hide their work and the designers desperately try to keep those "naughty players" in line. And such things as making an enjoyable game naturally and quickly fall by the wayside.|||Quote:
Where are you getting these figures from? You talk about "educated debate", but then you invent data to suit your arguments and base your reasoning on half-baked assumptions about a game that almost no one here has actually played.
I understand that you're passionate about your views, but perhaps you should take a step back and look at things objectively?
Ofc they are made up, they are a figure of speech. Sheesh.
|||There have been some interesting discussion points in this thread. I still don't see how people can truly feel that every decision Blizz makes is guided by $$. If all they cared about was money, they would have released the game awhile ago and used their reputation to bring in $. They continue to polish and change things so that they create the best gaming experience for their players. I also don't think that things need to be inconvenient to be challenging/rewarding. Ael mentioned "skill points removal, both in cata and d3, the all-famous RMAH, max 4 players in game, and skill slots / talent slots reduced" These things were not changed to 'dumb down' the game or to make money.Skill point removal: At first, I was a little confused by this decision. However, after reading several hands on reports and listening to developer interviewers, this decision made a lot of sense. Having to horde skill points to then dump into 2 or 3 skills isn't challenging or rewarding. I would much rather enjoy the whole game than worrying about saving points for the end game. Plus, this change allows players to experience and utilize different skills without having to worry about one being weaker than another. In Cata, they didn't remove skill points. They cleared a lot of the bloat/wasted talents in the trees.
RMAH: Another feature that is controversial, but I think it will work out well in the end. As a player who used external trading sites to facilitate trading, it will be nice to have something created by Blizz and used by a wider player base. The fact that you can spend real money on items doesn't bother me. Blizz isn't selling power; the players are selling power. Was this decision made purely to make money? Nah. They needed some way to facilitate trading, and I think they picked something that is contemporary. Will they make money from this feature? Most likely. We want them to be able to make money though so that the game continues to get attention/development.
4 player games: This was another change that was kind of a bummer at first, but if you actually watch the different videos, the skills/monsters are so visual that having 8 players on the screen would be pretty chaotic. They've said in plenty of interviews that they tried it with 8 people and it just didn't work out. You could argue this change actually makes the game more challenging because there are less people helping you progress through the game. When you had 8 player games in d2, half those people were leeching/mooching anyways.
If all blizz did was create d2 with updated graphics that would be lame/boring. I do believe they are putting their players first and truly trying to create something that we will enjoy playing for plenty of years. That's why they scrapped the original d3. It needs to evolve and give us new things to try.
Woo long wall of text, sorry all! Oh, one last thing, do some of these cynics really want d3 to be so challenging/inaccessible that it alienates a large potential player base causing the game to flop, have blizz lose money, and hurt their ability to update the game? Would they be heroes then? Would you be happier if the game started really challening/confusing and then they had to change it later on? We have to wait until we experience hell/inferno to see the real challenge level of the game.|||Quote:
There have been some interesting discussion points in this thread. I still don't see how people can truly feel that every decision Blizz makes is guided by $$. If all they cared about was money, they would have released the game awhile ago and used their reputation to bring in $.
This is a complete and utter falacy. Blizzard can't literally sell a turd in a box, they have to uphold some reputation.
Also, why release before creating all the systems that will bring in the most money? That would be horrible business.|||Quote:
This is a complete and utter falacy. Blizzard can't literally sell a turd in a box, they have to uphold some reputation
TRH disagrees with you. He has proved more then enough that Blizzard can sell almost everyhting and make a nice buck out of it. Put other silly pets/mounts blizzard offers for wow players and all the awesome premium services (which btw, for the most part should be free) on top of that, and you can see that Blizz can squeeze a quick buck without any effort.|||Quote:
-skill points removal, both in cata and d3.
-the all-famous RMAH
-max 4 players in game
-skill slots / talent slots reduced
Idiotic. Aside from RMAH, these are simply changes you disagree with. Explain to me how D3 with 8 max players will earn them less money than D3 with 4 players?
That's what I thought.
As far as RMAH, sure, it's a way for them to earn money, but exactly what principle was compromised in doing so?
Vague as expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment