Hi,
So there's obviously resistances of some kind in place.
Some resistance of some kind is hardly a working system. I did not say there were *no* resistances, I said there was a *lack* of it. Anyone using any form of "spell" even two pushes back has seen the "resists" flash on their screen Some character types and some monsters under some conditions seem to have it. Balancing spell effects against those that have it ends up with way overpowered effects against those that don't have resistance yet. Balancing it against those that don't have it results in spells that are totally ineffective when they encounter it.
Pete, you really are too negative about a game that is in beta and is constantly being improved.
The game is in beta, I'm allowing for that. I'm also allowing for the fact that this game has been under development for well over three years, that Vivendi effectively gave them a time limit (and from the example at Sierra, Blizzard needs to take that limit seriously) and that whole major parts of the game not only aren't implemented, they aren't even fully thought out.
As to "constantly being improved", that's a craps shoot. Constantly being added to, yes. And some of the additions are improvements. But not all.
My cynicism and negativity stem from two main sources. First is the obvious fact that this game, like all Blizzard games and most games in general, has not been designed. The outline of a concept was implemented and then a random walk process is being used that will, hopefully, yield a fun, challenging, interesting, and balanced game. The fact that that process has yet to achieve more than one or two of those goals at a time and often fails at achieving any of them does not seem to bother Blizzard. Whether that's confidence from experience or hubris remains to be seen.
The second is related. Both of the last two games Blizzard has put out were highly incomplete at release and even their respective expansions didn't fully deliver the game that each *could* and should have been. The MMOG market is close to saturation. I want a good game from Blizzard, I want it to succeed for the selfish reason that if it doesn't, I will not be able to play it.
The problem is that Blizzard may generate a "successful" game that will have mass appeal and be the MMORPG equivalent of The Sims. The game will be available, but I will not be interested in playing it. Or they might push a seriously broken or incomplete product out the door. In which case, the game might have a good "core" but not last long enough to have it show. And again I would not be playing it (of course, neither will anyone else).
Of course, the Blizzard "answer" is "we'll ship it when it's done." That was true of D1 (buggy, but done). Of SC/BW (their most "polished" game(s)). It was not true of D2 (arenas, guild halls, greatly abbreviated act 5) nor of WC3. The rep of the company might sell enough boxes to make the game a success, even if most people play it for a few weeks and toss it. But the economics of a MMOG require something better.
So, yeah, I am taking the fact that this is beta into consideration. I'm also taking track record, method of development, and the climate in the game industry into consideration. A great lesson can be learned by reading game magazines with some care. All "future" products they talk about are reported with great positive superlatives (most of them bestowed on features promised but not implemented). The reviews of products actually shipping are much less positive, with flaws and bugs usually overshadowing features. And no one seems to review games that have been out for a while for longevity.
If I must base my opinions on the three pillars of "it's Blizzard", "they've promised", and "it's a beta", then I can join the chorus of the fans who are chanting praises. And when it ship I can join that same chorus in the lamentation of "what happened?" I do not choose to fill that role.
--Pete
So there's obviously resistances of some kind in place.
Some resistance of some kind is hardly a working system. I did not say there were *no* resistances, I said there was a *lack* of it. Anyone using any form of "spell" even two pushes back has seen the "resists" flash on their screen Some character types and some monsters under some conditions seem to have it. Balancing spell effects against those that have it ends up with way overpowered effects against those that don't have resistance yet. Balancing it against those that don't have it results in spells that are totally ineffective when they encounter it.
Pete, you really are too negative about a game that is in beta and is constantly being improved.
The game is in beta, I'm allowing for that. I'm also allowing for the fact that this game has been under development for well over three years, that Vivendi effectively gave them a time limit (and from the example at Sierra, Blizzard needs to take that limit seriously) and that whole major parts of the game not only aren't implemented, they aren't even fully thought out.
As to "constantly being improved", that's a craps shoot. Constantly being added to, yes. And some of the additions are improvements. But not all.
My cynicism and negativity stem from two main sources. First is the obvious fact that this game, like all Blizzard games and most games in general, has not been designed. The outline of a concept was implemented and then a random walk process is being used that will, hopefully, yield a fun, challenging, interesting, and balanced game. The fact that that process has yet to achieve more than one or two of those goals at a time and often fails at achieving any of them does not seem to bother Blizzard. Whether that's confidence from experience or hubris remains to be seen.
The second is related. Both of the last two games Blizzard has put out were highly incomplete at release and even their respective expansions didn't fully deliver the game that each *could* and should have been. The MMOG market is close to saturation. I want a good game from Blizzard, I want it to succeed for the selfish reason that if it doesn't, I will not be able to play it.
The problem is that Blizzard may generate a "successful" game that will have mass appeal and be the MMORPG equivalent of The Sims. The game will be available, but I will not be interested in playing it. Or they might push a seriously broken or incomplete product out the door. In which case, the game might have a good "core" but not last long enough to have it show. And again I would not be playing it (of course, neither will anyone else).
Of course, the Blizzard "answer" is "we'll ship it when it's done." That was true of D1 (buggy, but done). Of SC/BW (their most "polished" game(s)). It was not true of D2 (arenas, guild halls, greatly abbreviated act 5) nor of WC3. The rep of the company might sell enough boxes to make the game a success, even if most people play it for a few weeks and toss it. But the economics of a MMOG require something better.
So, yeah, I am taking the fact that this is beta into consideration. I'm also taking track record, method of development, and the climate in the game industry into consideration. A great lesson can be learned by reading game magazines with some care. All "future" products they talk about are reported with great positive superlatives (most of them bestowed on features promised but not implemented). The reviews of products actually shipping are much less positive, with flaws and bugs usually overshadowing features. And no one seems to review games that have been out for a while for longevity.
If I must base my opinions on the three pillars of "it's Blizzard", "they've promised", and "it's a beta", then I can join the chorus of the fans who are chanting praises. And when it ship I can join that same chorus in the lamentation of "what happened?" I do not choose to fill that role.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?