Starcraft: Ghost News!

[metadigital]

"Like many in the industry, we've been impressed with the potential of the new consoles, and we're looking forward to exploring that potential further," stated Mike Morhaime, president and cofounder of Blizzard Entertainment. "In addition to allowing us to determine the best course for StarCraft: Ghost, this review period will help us lay the groundwork for our future console games."

Sounds like the game WILL be made, and they are using it as a guinea pig for their next-gen development. Blizzard have a stellar reputation for creating superlative games (even if not universally popular, which is impossible).

 

Can't see a problem.

[Hurlshort]

That doesn't mean its a good game.  It just means that there are a lot of stupid people out there. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if you are going to make a product, are you going to target 5 million stupid people with money to spend, or 1 really smart cheapskate like you? I mean, I'm just saying...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, if you are going to make a product, are you going to target 5 million stupid people with money to spend, or 1 really smart cheapskate like you?  I mean, I'm just saying...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

classic

[Darque]

I hate blizzard and will never buy a game from them again until it has Starcraft in the title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not even Diablo III?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see Starcraft in the title, so no.

 

I am quite unhappy about this.

[Llyranor]

Depends what your goals as a developer are, of course. Indie devs

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Word must not have gotten around yet it's still listed for release in 153 days.

[karka]

Blizzard isn't quick enough to make games for consoles. Consoles fill their life cycles before Blizzard release the game.

[Lyric Suite]

That doesn't mean its a good game.

 

Perhaps, but WoW is, after all it's said and done, a very good game...

[Calax]

That doesn't mean its a good game.  It just means that there are a lot of stupid people out there. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if you are going to make a product, are you going to target 5 million stupid people with money to spend, or 1 really smart cheapskate like you? I mean, I'm just saying...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is that current? or is that just a peak number?

 

Because from what I can tell, WoW might not actually have that many people with their accounts active... I mean you say "We've got seven million accounts!" is like saying "I've met 7 million people!"

ie I've said hi but that doesn't mean that I've actually kept in contact with them for that long.

[metadigital]

Is that important?

[Llyranor]

I could care less if 7 million people weren't actively playing my game. They paid for the retail copy, so the joke's on them.

[Craigboy2]

It's bad...

 

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/698/698434p1.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That means I don't get to play it on my xbox

[Hurlshort]

I believe the 5 million refers to retail copies sold. It doesn't really matter, the point is there are a lot of people subscribing to the game. People can loathe MMORPG's all they want, but it's not a genre that is going to die anytime soon.

[Gabrielle]

Blizzard isn't quick enough to make games for consoles. Consoles fill their life cycles before Blizzard release the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there one smart cookie that is why.

[Craigboy2]

I believe the 5 million refers to retail copies sold.  It doesn't really matter, the point is there are a lot of people subscribing to the game.  People can loathe MMORPG's all they want, but it's not a genre that is going to die anytime soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bt\/\/ th3 wa3? ca/\/ i ha\/ su/\/\ fr33 stu/=/=?

[Gabrielle]

I hate l33t talk

[Llyranor]

The concept of MMORPG in and of itself (even with monthly fees) isn't really my main gripe. It's what they *currently* consist of. Sorry, but I don't care about grinding XP, killing monsters for items or exploring random dungeons. That's not my idea of fun. The playerbase doesn't help, and is probably a big factor in hindering the genre's progression to the next level. What I want is an actual online roleplaying community in which you actual have a role in the community other than generic adventurer/fisherman/miner #454598374834.

 

Remember that EVE Online story where one employer hired a corporation of assassins to kill a powerful CEO of another corporation? The assassins infiltrated the targetted corp (an operation taking over a year in real-life) in order to get close to the CEO. The double agent became a very trusted individual. Eventually, they staged a massively coordinated operation, in which all the infiltrators from all over the galaxy/universe/whatever stole from the corp's storage crap and ran off at the same time. At the exact same moment, a carefully planned ambush (and very risky) on the CEO was made, and she was brutally murdered. Now THAT's the stuff of legends.

 

What's the difference between that and performing fetch quests? Human-human interaction drives the drama. The concept of a human society should be what drives the game. The event above didn't really on game features in order to be possible; it was purely human-human interaction. What the game needs to be, essentially, is to provide a world where that kind of stuff is possible.

 

Look at the possibilities. A PI firm where members get hired to spy on particular targets. It doesn't have to be content-driven. Guild A has a vested interest in finding more about person B in guild C, so it hires person D, who's a PI. D spies on B and reports continually to A, and gets regular payments in exchange. THAT's interesting gaming, and actually gives PURPOSE to the fact that the game's MMO.

 

Or what about some escorting agency? Someone needs some goods delivered to a specific location, your agency gets hired to ensure its safety. It may be completely uneventful. Or, maybe another party got hold of this news, and hires people to ambush you.

 

The point is that the game needs to provide a society/world where events are PLAYER-driven. It needs its own politics. It needs to lose its 'gamey' feel. Instead of being concerned over when you'll reach lvl 34, you'll focus on increasing the prestige of your agency (an out-of-game mechanic, too; it won't be tracked in-game, but by the PLAYERS). When that happens, THEN I'll be interested.

Edited March 26, 2006 by Llyranor

[metadigital]

I couldn't agree more. That is taking gaming to another (the next? hopefully) level.

The concept of MMORPG in and of itself (even with monthly fees) isn't really my main gripe. It's what they *currently* consist of. Sorry, but I don't care about grinding XP, killing monsters for items or exploring random dungeons. That's not my idea of fun. The playerbase doesn't help, and is probably a big factor in hindering the genre's progression to the next level. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This presents the major challenge for the industry, and it's a chicken-and-egg scenario. Whilst WoW et atlia are commercially successful, there is little incentive for this gaming style to spontaneously evolve.

 

I am tempted to check out EVE Online because it has such a different mechanic. I think, though, the main stumbling block is the juvenile community ... maybe a community like this one at Obsidian might make a MMO game, perhaps even a MMORPG, work?

[Nick_i_am]

Often my main gripe is playerbase. The same mechanics that give mature ends of the population freedom to have fun in the game also gives the idiots the chance to ruin other peoples fun.

 

For example, the above EVE story is a great example of the former (sure, people were 'hurt' but it was beautiful) but for each of those there is a story of the guy who scammed guys of millions (which, in itself, could still be considered an example of the former) but worse, the game is known as somthing of a gankfest.

[Llyranor]

Which is why I'm not dismissing Bio's upcoming MMORPG completely yet. It'll be interesting to see their approach to it, and how far (if at all) they plan on breaking away from the current mold.

[metadigital]

Interesting that the alternatives are:

• beat some other kid up and take their lunch money
  i.e. replace the current successful MMORPG with a new version; or
  
• create a new type of game
  i.e. all the concommitant risks involved in developing new IP.
  

[LoneWolf16]

I don't see Starcraft in the title, so no.

 

I am quite unhappy about this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, this is serious.

 

Ghost wasn't even all that appealing to me to begin with, since it was console only and basically a slap in the face of their fan base. It is disappointing to have another, potentially permanent, delay, but if it ends up being a truly great game in the end...what's been lost save for time spent complaining about it?

[Calax]

well from what I can tell most of the kiddie playerbase doesn't exsist if you don't have loot or pvp...

 

Before PVP was put into coh there was a lot of pure genoristy going around (of course the fact that money flowed like niagra falls helped). and nobody said "1 c4n PWN j0 nwb!"

 

when the introduced pvp most of the player base looked at it shrugged and went on their way but it also started to attract the more immature "UBERMAN" style people who would do anything to make themselves the most powerful of gods.

 

Of course there is no such thing in COH that can be called an economy because there is so much money flying around.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

People speak of Blizzard and "High Standards" but I haven't played a single Blzzard game and enjoied it to the point that I was impressed, and sucked into it.

[Llyranor]

Well, they're pretty mainstream and have high production values.