There was no Blizzcon for 2006 and 2012. If their development tempo leaves them light on meaningful content for their core audience every six years, perhaps Blizzard should have followed precedent in 2018?
They can't, cause eSports.
Which isn't a problem imo. Blizzcon is significantly more than the opening announcements nowadays
I would suggest that for a lot of people this isn't true. Hence the reactions we are seeing.
People pay attention to get the big announcements at the opening and then go to the panels for more game-specific in-depth stuff around those big announcements. That's what all the articles and such you see written about Blizzcon are all about.
I think I've tried to articulate my thoughts on this several times and every time I write something out I feel like I come across some new facet that makes me reconsider the whole thing. I think these are my thoughts on the matter
-Reaction was way overblown. It's okay to be disappointed, but getting angry, especially at the devs and not the business end, it just horseshit.
-That said, this was a PAID event. People shelled out money to watch it online, or shelled out TONS of money to go to it in person. if they're disappointed in the product, I hope they reconsider buying into Blizzcon next year. (Sadly, next year is probably going to get buoyed by WoW expansion 8's announcement, so people will probably give Blizzard a pass)
-Blizzard could have saved a lot of heartache if they had come out and said "We don't have anything BIG to announce this year, but we have a couple of smaller announcements we hope you'll like.". But like how they can't cancel Blizzcon because of eSports, they can't discourage all those delicious ticket sales.
-Starcraft got way more shafted than Diablo did. Put out more DLC campaigns, you cowards!
I don't see the need for a Warcraft 3 remaster. The original graphics are charming enough to have withstood the years, I think.
Diablo Immortal sounds dumb, but then I haven't really liked Diablo since Diablo 2.
All this talk of loot boxes and micro-transactions and games-as-services and the death of single player is really starting to bum me out.
Can't we just go back to the PS2 years? Can't it just be early 2000's forever?
You can probably find more quality games that fit the ps2 model these days than you ever could in ps2s hayday. They're just coming from small/indie developers now and not from the big AAA publishers.
Never release a mobile title for your dead or dormant franchise before releasing a main platform game
Pokemon Go was ok, Dungeon Keeper mobile wasn't
Fire Emblem Heroes was ok, Command and Conquer mobile wasn't.
People were also pissed with Metroid Federation, and that wasn't even a mobile game, just a portable spinoff.
And even though Diablo 3 is still going with seasons and all, it's already 7 years old. People want D4. Anything else is just poking the wound with a sharp stick.
They did not say that they were not announcing D4 this year. They used clever PR speak that might have maybe been a little too clever, since it left everything so entirely ambiguous that they didn't really say anything at all.
If they weren't going to announced Diablo 4, or any other major Diablo titles, they needed to say that explicitly. "We are not announcing D4 at Blizzcon this year." That's all it would have taken.
I feel like they looked at Bethesda's kickass E3 press conference, and their takeaway from it was that "Hey, we can announce a mobile game for one of our most beloved franchises and everyone will be ok with it." Of course, they also ignored the fact that in addition to the Elder Scrolls Blades game that got announced, Bethesda also said "Yes, we're making ES6, but we're not ready to show it yet."
I don't see the need for a Warcraft 3 remaster. The original graphics are charming enough to have withstood the years, I think.
No, the original graphics are terrible and have aged like a carton of milk in a hot swamp.
Do we know if they're redoing the cinematics as well as the in game graphics? I remember hearing about some disappointment with the the StarCraft remaster that the cutscenes were the same ones from the original.
This is something that's bothered me for years: I'll still play Warcraft III, 3D RTS visuals and all--but the transfer quality for the beautiful cinematics that Blizzard commissioned (I assume) for the game's narrative climaxes is so goddamn terrible. It's mildly compressed, understandably low resolution, oh and totally fucked up with the brightness and gamma. For years, I thought this was just my particular PC or monitor, but as far as I can tell, this is where it looks everywhere. Somehow, they mostly fixed that by the time World of Warcraft came out--the compression and low resolution I can understand as concessions to a CD format that both Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne were originally sold on, but the fucked up brightness and gamma?
I have no idea. I'd honestly be fine if they didn't redo any of the cinematics (and the one we got was created purely for promotional teaser purposes), if they could give us versions of the original masters that don't look horribly washed out.
Never release a mobile title for your dead or dormant franchise before releasing a main platform game
Pokemon Go was ok, Dungeon Keeper mobile wasn't
Fire Emblem Heroes was ok, Command and Conquer mobile wasn't.
People were also pissed with Metroid Federation, and that wasn't even a mobile game, just a portable spinoff.
And even though Diablo 3 is still going with seasons and all, it's already 7 years old. People want D4. Anything else is just poking the wound with a sharp stick.
Never release a mobile title for your dead or dormant franchise before releasing a main platform game
Pokemon Go was ok, Dungeon Keeper mobile wasn't
Fire Emblem Heroes was ok, Command and Conquer mobile wasn't.
People were also pissed with Metroid Federation, and that wasn't even a mobile game, just a portable spinoff.
And even though Diablo 3 is still going with seasons and all, it's already 7 years old. People want D4. Anything else is just poking the wound with a sharp stick.
No it's not
*quick google check*
Goddamn I am old and time is a blur to me
I'd chalk this up to Reaper of Souls being two years after launch. It practically made it a new game.
I'm kinda bummed that this brand-new Switch game is technically towards the end of its life cycle and people are clamoring for the sequel, and I'm just now getting into it. As a Patient Gamer™ I'm used to the feeling, but not for a game for which I just paid $60.
I'm kinda bummed that this brand-new Switch game is technically towards the end of its life cycle and people are clamoring for the sequel, and I'm just now getting into it. As a Patient Gamer™ I'm used to the feeling, but not for a game for which I just paid $60.
I regularly buy and play games for the first time years after they came out, very deliberately. So I sympathize, especially for a game with a heavy emphasis on multiplayer. On the other hand, the game did come out on six distinct platforms before the Switch since 2012 (Windows, MacOS which like everyone else I forgot, both Xboxes and both Playstations). You've basically done what I do for plenty of games.
I should note, I don't own a Switch, so I've never hand the mindset of "waiting for something to come to Switch." I did wait a year for Nier Automata to come to Xbox though.
Diablo 3 is not really still "going with seasons" any more than Diablo 2 is. Its just a minor bonus being slapped on each season. The actual content and balance updates are over.
I'm kinda bummed that this brand-new Switch game is technically towards the end of its life cycle and people are clamoring for the sequel, and I'm just now getting into it. As a Patient Gamer™ I'm used to the feeling, but not for a game for which I just paid $60.
Well if it took you 7 years to pick it up then you'll be good to pick up D4 in 7 years too.
I'm kinda bummed that this brand-new Switch game is technically towards the end of its life cycle and people are clamoring for the sequel, and I'm just now getting into it. As a Patient Gamer™ I'm used to the feeling, but not for a game for which I just paid $60.
If it helps, those of us that bought it piecemeal at each release paid at least $115. Being late to the party carries the benefit of all that content plus all the patches, many of which included pretty significant gameplay changes.
It's not too uncommon to get several hundred hours of play out of it. Not to make it sound daunting, it just adds up because it's very much a game that you can keep revisiting for years.
I only have a firm, solid notion of Diablo 3's age because I was lead on the Brazilian Portuguese localization, therefore I can match the game launch to my own life milestones pretty well. I've actually been playing it since late 2010. I got to see the almost all the other skill systems that didn't make it to launch. It was also very rough trying to see the later game areas without saves or waypoints 100% implemented. I saw those first 30 minutes a billion times before launch.
Diablo 3 is not really still "going with seasons" any more than Diablo 2 is. Its just a minor bonus being slapped on each season. The actual content and balance updates are over.
This also factors into why fans are upset about the mobile thing. D3 meta is stale as fuck, there is still plenty they could do to keep fans happy. Do another shake up of the meta. Release a new class (Druid is one that a lot of people have been anticipating). Maybe even a whole new expansion (no one expects this). Current D3 players are antsy as fuck and have been for a while because D3 is stale. Personally I'm done with the game unless they do something new, because i can only play the same builds and do "rat runs" (the current meta's most effective and overwhelmingly popular 4 man group build) so many times before I'm done.
0
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
Catching up on this thread so apologies for late replies :P
I think you have to remember that Blizzcon isn't just about announcements, it's about bringing their fans together (big deal for WoW guilds) and eSports now.
What is there to do on location though aside from play demos and attend talks / QA's?
Hang out with other Blizzard fans and/or your guild mates? I mean if I want to be super reductive, what is there to do at PAX other than play demos and attend panels? They are social gatherings as much as anything else.
Hi social anxiety is a thing and being surrounded by tons of people with no specific agenda to navigate through them is terrifying. So it's a legit question.
This is why I stopped going. I did have fun my first couple years, but every year it gets worse and worse as they invite more and more people. As I think I said before, just seeing the crowds this year on the virtual ticket was giving me some anxiety remembering how absolutely horrible it was last year. (Guys, I know they expanded the convention center - that doesn't mean you have to cram MORE people in there and make it miserable for everyone).
Never release a mobile title for your dead or dormant franchise before releasing a main platform game
Pokemon Go was ok, Dungeon Keeper mobile wasn't
Fire Emblem Heroes was ok, Command and Conquer mobile wasn't.
People were also pissed with Metroid Federation, and that wasn't even a mobile game, just a portable spinoff.
And even though Diablo 3 is still going with seasons and all, it's already 7 years old. People want D4. Anything else is just poking the wound with a sharp stick.
Yeah I feel like the Federation Force comparison is really apt here. Like, the very next year they announced Metroid Prime 4 with a fucking logo and people were appeased. That's all Blizzard really had to do here to save themselves the horrible backlash.
Anyways, my twitter has been full of absolute stupidity about this over the weekend. I saw someone suggest fans were upset because mobile gaming is mostly female and thus they were all scared of women playing. Seriously guys?
Did see this thread from former Diablo 2 producer which I agreed with though (I'll spoiler and post all the parts):
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
I think Mark Kern's comments on this have been very dead-on. Particularly his reading of the situation as Blizzard being out of touch with the community these days, which I definitely agree with (with the possible exception of the Overwatch team specifically).
I think Mark Kern's comments on this have been very dead-on. Particularly his reading of the situation as Blizzard being out of touch with the community these days, which I definitely agree with (with the possible exception of the Overwatch team specifically).
Yeah it really hit home with me because it's something I've personally been feeling lately and I used to be the BIGGEST fanboy of the company.
I agree the Overwatch team is pretty good though. I really haven't had any major complaints about how they've handled stuff that I can think of.
I don't know anything about Mike Kearn's politics, but having read his suspicions on the internal change at Blizzard--yeah, I could see that being the case. It's a definite possibility. Success, like anything else, changes corporate culture.
It may not be the case, but Blizzard didn't develop reputation for hitting every single ball out of the park with a "Eh, don't over think it. It'll be okay," approach (excluding WoW expansions, which might be getting to the root of the issue--and even those are almost always well-received at the first reveal). They don't make that many new games, and unless we're insisting this isn't a new game, the response is a first for them.
I'm not even particularly disappointed. All I needed was the Warcraft III announcement. I've gotten used to a decade between Diablo games.
I think Mark Kern's comments on this have been very dead-on. Particularly his reading of the situation as Blizzard being out of touch with the community these days, which I definitely agree with (with the possible exception of the Overwatch team specifically).
HotS and Starcraft seem to be doing fine. Not everyone is happy obviously, but the community at large are still playing and enjoying the games.
Hearthstone, I'm not sure about. I don't think the devs are out-of-touch, they may just be... kind of bad at balancing card games? But for all the virtriol they get, they also have a huge, consistent player base, so... shrug.
They did not say that they were not announcing D4 this year. They used clever PR speak that might have maybe been a little too clever, since it left everything so entirely ambiguous that they didn't really say anything at all.
If they weren't going to announced Diablo 4, or any other major Diablo titles, they needed to say that explicitly. "We are not announcing D4 at Blizzcon this year." That's all it would have taken.
I feel like they looked at Bethesda's kickass E3 press conference, and their takeaway from it was that "Hey, we can announce a mobile game for one of our most beloved franchises and everyone will be ok with it." Of course, they also ignored the fact that in addition to the Elder Scrolls Blades game that got announced, Bethesda also said "Yes, we're making ES6, but we're not ready to show it yet."
Bethesda also had big blow-outs for Rage 2, Fallout 76 and Doom Eterna; and then announcements of Wolfenstein: Young Blood, Prey: Mooncrash, new ip Starfield AND Elder Scrolls 6. All that in addition to their Elder Scrolls mobile game.
Blizzard came out with some pretty standard new content for WoW, HotS, Hearthstone and Overwatch, a remaster of War3, absolutely shit all for StarCraft, and nothing for Diablo aside from the mobile game. Like, even at the most uncharitable description, Bethesda was jangling MUCH more interesting keys in front of people's faces.
I thought massively's take was pretty good, and it explains why much more of the show fell flat than just Diablo. TLDR Blizzard is trying to treat a fan convention (place for fans to congregate and celebrate) as a trade show (place to advertise new things to attendees, especially new audiences) So not only was Immortal a bad idea here because its not targeted at existing fans, they also end up doing panels for other games where there is next to nothing exciting to announce, because they still have to announce things because its a trade show. Hearthstone was notably announced at PAX for good reason.
I still think announcing "Diablo 4" is a bit tricky because I suspect it won't be called "Diablo 4", and how do you unambigously communicate that it is in effect "Diablo 4" when that isn't the title logo and you aren't ready to show anything more than a title logo. There's probably a way to do it but if people can't get the hint from existing public info that "D4" is in development then its not that obvious.
HotS and Starcraft seem to be doing fine. Not everyone is happy obviously, but the community at large are still playing and enjoying the games.
Hearthstone, I'm not sure about. I don't think the devs are out-of-touch, they may just be... kind of bad at balancing card games? But for all the virtriol they get, they also have a huge, consistent player base, so... shrug.
I'd be curious to see what the true playerbases are for HotS and SC2. I've read they weren't big, but I haven't read anything at all since then.
That and this was StarCraft's 20th anniversary....didn't really feel like that mattered.
HS is / was doing huge, but seems to have fallen off a cliff lately. It still has a lot of players and I am sure they will make bank on the next expansion (if you have millions of players, and lose half, you still have a LOT of players ). It's definitely doing the best of these three, but I dunno if I'd say HotS or SC2 were doing well at this point.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
My feeling on Hearthstone is that they very often go much too far into "silly" territory with their expansions. Humor is a part of Warcraft, and it always has been, ever since the original "keep clicking on a unit till it says funny things" thing in the old RTS's. But most of the silliness of Warcraft is hidden or somewhat easter-eggy. Whereas with Hearthstone they just throw wackiness right in your face.
And that's not what I want. I'm sure some people like it, and that's okay too. Everyone has different tastes and opinions. But for me personally, they turned me off when they started going down the super wacky road.
HotS and Starcraft seem to be doing fine. Not everyone is happy obviously, but the community at large are still playing and enjoying the games.
Hearthstone, I'm not sure about. I don't think the devs are out-of-touch, they may just be... kind of bad at balancing card games? But for all the virtriol they get, they also have a huge, consistent player base, so... shrug.
I'd be curious to see what the true playerbases are for HotS and SC2. I've read they weren't big, but I haven't read anything at all since then.
That and this was StarCraft's 20th anniversary....didn't really feel like that mattered.
HS is / was doing huge, but seems to have fallen off a cliff lately. It still has a lot of players and I am sure they will make bank on the next expansion (if you have millions of players, and lose half, you still have a LOT of players ). It's definitely doing the best of these three, but I dunno if I'd say HotS or SC2 were doing well at this point.
I don't think HotS or Starcraft have all that many players, no. But they never really have. I wasn't arguing that they were super successful, just that the HotS and SC teams don't seem super disconnected with the players, which was the claim that all of Blizzard (except Overwatch) was.
A friend of mine pushed me to finally playing another round of D3, so I picked up the Necro (and am having a lot of fun playing as one) but it definitely looks like a 7 year old game at this point. I kind of wish they took the assets of the mobile game or HotS even to upgrade D3.
Although, not like they did with W3 reforged, that game just looks jarringly out of place instead of the usual Blizzard artistry.
the initial look at the character models W3 reforged looked weird to me too but apparently it all looks significantly better in motion, so I'm holding off on any judgments there
It's more like on their own the models look fine, even moving on their own they look fine, but when you put them all together on the actual map and see them moving it just looks weird.
Yeah, that Blizzard never put out improved textures and assets for Diablo III on PC (or for that matter, the current consoles sans Switch) was always a small letdown--though probably just because of the rumors floating around that they might. It's fine to make sure your game can run on a toaster, but if it's a long-surviving platform, maybe offer things for people not playing on toasters (which has been done to a limited extent with WoW--which much more desperately needed it).
the initial look at the character models W3 reforged looked weird to me too but apparently it all looks significantly better in motion, so I'm holding off on any judgments there
The trick is how good they'll look at distances too.
i kinda imagine that can't be fixed without an absurd amount of investment, because they're still on top of the war3 engine. probably just going to keep being the upgraded models with new voice acting and the same animations that they had in 2002
I will say the animation on the in-engine cutscenes looks REAL bad, but maybe that'll get fixed before launch.
I'm not optimistic myself--this isn't quite a "skin atop a skin" arrangement as in Starcraft Remastered, but they do seem to want to capture the original cinematic direction of Warcraft III which involves a lot of NPCs spinning around, walking to coordinates, stoping, and opening and closing their jaws sort of.
I'd love them to re-do the in-game no-control cinematics, but that might be "too much work" for something that isn't going to command Overwatch or even Starcraft II numbers. I'm just hoping for fixed CG video transfer quality.
Posts
I would suggest that for a lot of people this isn't true. Hence the reactions we are seeing.
People pay attention to get the big announcements at the opening and then go to the panels for more game-specific in-depth stuff around those big announcements. That's what all the articles and such you see written about Blizzcon are all about.
-Reaction was way overblown. It's okay to be disappointed, but getting angry, especially at the devs and not the business end, it just horseshit.
-That said, this was a PAID event. People shelled out money to watch it online, or shelled out TONS of money to go to it in person. if they're disappointed in the product, I hope they reconsider buying into Blizzcon next year. (Sadly, next year is probably going to get buoyed by WoW expansion 8's announcement, so people will probably give Blizzard a pass)
-Blizzard could have saved a lot of heartache if they had come out and said "We don't have anything BIG to announce this year, but we have a couple of smaller announcements we hope you'll like.". But like how they can't cancel Blizzcon because of eSports, they can't discourage all those delicious ticket sales.
-Starcraft got way more shafted than Diablo did. Put out more DLC campaigns, you cowards!
It doesn't help their other games' announcements were the kind of stuff that gets announced throughout the year.
Right, but then they mentioned several projects in the works with zero context of what they could be or how many would get announced.
Granted we're approaching "announce everything ahead of time" territory, which defeats the point in many ways.
You can probably find more quality games that fit the ps2 model these days than you ever could in ps2s hayday. They're just coming from small/indie developers now and not from the big AAA publishers.
Never release a mobile title for your dead or dormant franchise before releasing a main platform game
Pokemon Go was ok, Dungeon Keeper mobile wasn't
Fire Emblem Heroes was ok, Command and Conquer mobile wasn't.
People were also pissed with Metroid Federation, and that wasn't even a mobile game, just a portable spinoff.
And even though Diablo 3 is still going with seasons and all, it's already 7 years old. People want D4. Anything else is just poking the wound with a sharp stick.
If they weren't going to announced Diablo 4, or any other major Diablo titles, they needed to say that explicitly. "We are not announcing D4 at Blizzcon this year." That's all it would have taken.
I feel like they looked at Bethesda's kickass E3 press conference, and their takeaway from it was that "Hey, we can announce a mobile game for one of our most beloved franchises and everyone will be ok with it." Of course, they also ignored the fact that in addition to the Elder Scrolls Blades game that got announced, Bethesda also said "Yes, we're making ES6, but we're not ready to show it yet."
This is something that's bothered me for years: I'll still play Warcraft III, 3D RTS visuals and all--but the transfer quality for the beautiful cinematics that Blizzard commissioned (I assume) for the game's narrative climaxes is so goddamn terrible. It's mildly compressed, understandably low resolution, oh and totally fucked up with the brightness and gamma. For years, I thought this was just my particular PC or monitor, but as far as I can tell, this is where it looks everywhere. Somehow, they mostly fixed that by the time World of Warcraft came out--the compression and low resolution I can understand as concessions to a CD format that both Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne were originally sold on, but the fucked up brightness and gamma?
I have no idea. I'd honestly be fine if they didn't redo any of the cinematics (and the one we got was created purely for promotional teaser purposes), if they could give us versions of the original masters that don't look horribly washed out.
No it's not
*quick google check*
Goddamn I am old and time is a blur to me
I'd chalk this up to Reaper of Souls being two years after launch. It practically made it a new game.
EDIT: On the other hand, I did buy it more than a year after it came out. Possibly more like two.
I regularly buy and play games for the first time years after they came out, very deliberately. So I sympathize, especially for a game with a heavy emphasis on multiplayer. On the other hand, the game did come out on six distinct platforms before the Switch since 2012 (Windows, MacOS which like everyone else I forgot, both Xboxes and both Playstations). You've basically done what I do for plenty of games.
I should note, I don't own a Switch, so I've never hand the mindset of "waiting for something to come to Switch." I did wait a year for Nier Automata to come to Xbox though.
Well if it took you 7 years to pick it up then you'll be good to pick up D4 in 7 years too.
If it helps, those of us that bought it piecemeal at each release paid at least $115. Being late to the party carries the benefit of all that content plus all the patches, many of which included pretty significant gameplay changes.
It's not too uncommon to get several hundred hours of play out of it. Not to make it sound daunting, it just adds up because it's very much a game that you can keep revisiting for years.
This also factors into why fans are upset about the mobile thing. D3 meta is stale as fuck, there is still plenty they could do to keep fans happy. Do another shake up of the meta. Release a new class (Druid is one that a lot of people have been anticipating). Maybe even a whole new expansion (no one expects this). Current D3 players are antsy as fuck and have been for a while because D3 is stale. Personally I'm done with the game unless they do something new, because i can only play the same builds and do "rat runs" (the current meta's most effective and overwhelmingly popular 4 man group build) so many times before I'm done.
This is why I stopped going. I did have fun my first couple years, but every year it gets worse and worse as they invite more and more people. As I think I said before, just seeing the crowds this year on the virtual ticket was giving me some anxiety remembering how absolutely horrible it was last year. (Guys, I know they expanded the convention center - that doesn't mean you have to cram MORE people in there and make it miserable for everyone).
Yeah I feel like the Federation Force comparison is really apt here. Like, the very next year they announced Metroid Prime 4 with a fucking logo and people were appeased. That's all Blizzard really had to do here to save themselves the horrible backlash.
Anyways, my twitter has been full of absolute stupidity about this over the weekend. I saw someone suggest fans were upset because mobile gaming is mostly female and thus they were all scared of women playing. Seriously guys?
Did see this thread from former Diablo 2 producer which I agreed with though (I'll spoiler and post all the parts):
Yeah it really hit home with me because it's something I've personally been feeling lately and I used to be the BIGGEST fanboy of the company.
I agree the Overwatch team is pretty good though. I really haven't had any major complaints about how they've handled stuff that I can think of.
Oh I had not heard that. Never mind, fuck that guy.
don't get me wrong it could be a
situation but
It may not be the case, but Blizzard didn't develop reputation for hitting every single ball out of the park with a "Eh, don't over think it. It'll be okay," approach (excluding WoW expansions, which might be getting to the root of the issue--and even those are almost always well-received at the first reveal). They don't make that many new games, and unless we're insisting this isn't a new game, the response is a first for them.
I'm not even particularly disappointed. All I needed was the Warcraft III announcement. I've gotten used to a decade between Diablo games.
HotS and Starcraft seem to be doing fine. Not everyone is happy obviously, but the community at large are still playing and enjoying the games.
Hearthstone, I'm not sure about. I don't think the devs are out-of-touch, they may just be... kind of bad at balancing card games? But for all the virtriol they get, they also have a huge, consistent player base, so... shrug.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Bethesda also had big blow-outs for Rage 2, Fallout 76 and Doom Eterna; and then announcements of Wolfenstein: Young Blood, Prey: Mooncrash, new ip Starfield AND Elder Scrolls 6. All that in addition to their Elder Scrolls mobile game.
Blizzard came out with some pretty standard new content for WoW, HotS, Hearthstone and Overwatch, a remaster of War3, absolutely shit all for StarCraft, and nothing for Diablo aside from the mobile game. Like, even at the most uncharitable description, Bethesda was jangling MUCH more interesting keys in front of people's faces.
I still think announcing "Diablo 4" is a bit tricky because I suspect it won't be called "Diablo 4", and how do you unambigously communicate that it is in effect "Diablo 4" when that isn't the title logo and you aren't ready to show anything more than a title logo. There's probably a way to do it but if people can't get the hint from existing public info that "D4" is in development then its not that obvious.
That and this was StarCraft's 20th anniversary....didn't really feel like that mattered.
HS is / was doing huge, but seems to have fallen off a cliff lately. It still has a lot of players and I am sure they will make bank on the next expansion (if you have millions of players, and lose half, you still have a LOT of players
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
And that's not what I want. I'm sure some people like it, and that's okay too. Everyone has different tastes and opinions. But for me personally, they turned me off when they started going down the super wacky road.
I don't think HotS or Starcraft have all that many players, no. But they never really have. I wasn't arguing that they were super successful, just that the HotS and SC teams don't seem super disconnected with the players, which was the claim that all of Blizzard (except Overwatch) was.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Although, not like they did with W3 reforged, that game just looks jarringly out of place instead of the usual Blizzard artistry.
The trick is how good they'll look at distances too.
I'm not optimistic myself--this isn't quite a "skin atop a skin" arrangement as in Starcraft Remastered, but they do seem to want to capture the original cinematic direction of Warcraft III which involves a lot of NPCs spinning around, walking to coordinates, stoping, and opening and closing their jaws sort of.
I'd love them to re-do the in-game no-control cinematics, but that might be "too much work" for something that isn't going to command Overwatch or even Starcraft II numbers. I'm just hoping for fixed CG video transfer quality.
I am not a fan of Golden's work, so this has me more than a bit concerned.
I mean, not in the sense that it'll affect me in the real world, but just in a "about Warcraft 3: Reforged" way.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).