Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:08 am Post subject:
Of Blizzard and EA
Subject description: Who gives better quality games
I was running around the net yesterday when I stumbled upon the starcraft 2 website I spent about 2 hrs there and then found a Q & A section.
The blizzard team said they would take a much time as possible to polish out the game.
So far it looks very promising.
So what do you think EA brings there games out quickly while blizzard takes there time.
So who's better. _________________
I'm very inactive here at PPM...
Got other things doing.... QUICK_EDIT
EA really just picked up from Westwood's works in C&C. The rest seem to be entirely either shooters, football, or Age of Empires styled RTS. Blizzard... I really haven't played much of their stuff. Starcraft was decent. I actually enjoyed it a lot more than any of the Renegade onwards C&Cs.
I'll vote Blizzard, because EA has a less than spotless record when it comes to their communities.
EDIT: Thanks Machine, got that one wrong - didn't play that much, really. Last edited by Orac on Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Back in the day I was playing SC more than TS and ra2.
The one and only reason I didn't go off to SC is because of modability.
So, for unmodded games, blizzard is better IMO (but hell, who bothers with unmodded? ). QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:56 am Post subject:
Depends on modding support.
Blizzard does not, has never and probably will never support modding in their games.
EA, on the other hand, does support modding, however debatable that is. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: National Reference Laboratory for IPNV
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:14 am Post subject:
Blizzard by a lot. The only reason I'm not modding any game from Blizzard is that making full mods (not map mods) in SC is harder than modding TS, and modding WC3 was not really fun as I prefer sci-fi to fantasy. Though the WC3 engine is quite more versatile that any other engine I've seen.
I'm really looking forward to SC2 world editor, as it's supposedly the same tool that Blizzard uses to make their ingame cinematics, campaigns and units (coding wise), and is also way more complex than the WC3 world editor.
On the other side EA games are mainly sport games, which suck badly, every year a new game, which is basically and expansion of the previous year game. Though I have to admit they have some good games too.
But in the end, it's not a fair comparison as EA is a big company, composed of several small companies (Subsidiaries); EA doesn't make the games they pay to make them. A more fair comparison would be between EA and Vivendi, the owner of Activision Blizzard.
In that case, I would favor Vivendi as apparently they care more for their subsidiaries.
@Orac: I guess you meant Starcraft, as Starcraft 2 is still on production .
@EVA-251: WTH?? Blizzard does support modding a lot, they were one of the first to include map editors. Staredit, starcraft's map editor is way more useful than many of the current modding utilities. WC3's World editor is awesome, you can do almost everything with it (I've seen first/third person shooters, mario kart racing maps, and really complex RPGs), also they released a 3dsmax plugin to export 3d models to the game (before SDKs were popular).
I'll take that WoW might not be really modable, or that Blizzard doesn't support modding it, since you're supposed to pay for playing it, and mods would require special servers (not profitable), or fan servers (pirate servers=no profit for Blizzard). Both against WoW's main purpose, a cash cow. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:39 am Post subject:
Mapping isn't modding.
As for what you said about WC3, well, I guess it says about how little of a shit I could give about the game. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Blizzard does not, has never and probably will never support modding in their games.
Not in the sense of like how you do in CnC. But they do indirectly support mod efforts via their vastly superior map editors. (From War3 on, basically anything the devs could do for their maps, you the user could do in yours)
It's also a much more stable platform for modding. Why bother making a complete TC when you can make a linked campaign or campaigns? You can even play them online straight out of the editor!
Rumour hasit, SC2's map editor (amusingly named scumedit) also includes graphics and sound making tools. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:49 am Post subject:
The answer to your question should be obvious, the difference between what a TC can offer compared to mere campaigns is dramatic.
Anyways, don't get me wrong, in terms of quality, Blizzard clearly has the edge, mainly due to their business model.
EA banks on hordes of titles each bringing in their own share to help keep the company's profits coming steady.
Blizzard banks on a couple of titles, so obviously quality is a must. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: National Reference Laboratory for IPNV
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:55 am Post subject:
On a side note there are TCs for Blizzard games, though most of them are buried deep beneath the tons and tons of map-mods.
As an example there's Gundam Century for Starcraft . QUICK_EDIT
I like the EALA method because you can't play a game that hasn't been released. You can't mod a game that hasn't been released either.
As for quality, the part of the games that has the longest lifespan-the multiplayer-is ruined because both comnpaines are catering to the competitve player, rather than the kid who's there to have fun. The people are the ones who ruin it. Balance wise I think Blizzard has the upper hand mathematically becuase they use unit to unit rather than side to side balancing. But any little deficency in balance will result in players exploiting it. So in the end result people get rushed, spammed, and beat down agaisnt online, and eventually they get disgusted with the whole thing. The blame the game makers instead of the people they are playing.
The single player component, I find the missions relativly comparable, but the story telling element of the EALA side to be far superior because they use people. Remember the intermissions between missions in starcraft? Those were horrible. I'd much prefer getting orders from a person behind a desk or command post thingie.
Quality is an overal combination of several elements. EALA _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Yes. WCIII is probably the best game I've ever seen as far as map editors/modifiable content goes. I too have seen the most amazing stuff come out of WCIII map editor. And calling it a map editor isn't really fair, as it can edit units and everything else. More like a WCIII SDK with built in Map editor. _________________ You come for the modding but you stay for the Crap Forum. QUICK_EDIT
I don't really care because they're canceling each other out. On the other hand, I do play C&C more than WC/SC. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:11 am Post subject:
Everyone's pretty much summed up my thoughts. It isn't the fairest comparison, each company with slightly different business models, methods.
Quality wise, I'd say Blizzard wins though. I actually got into WC3, and I definitely liked SC. Also, (from my SC online experience) yes, it would be nice to play against less pricky players online, but to be honest, I love arguing. Some of those guys are really stupid. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:26 am Post subject:
Never played War/Starcraft, so I can't give my opinion on that one. I do think EA could improve a bit on support and listen to the community instead to those rushfags on their own forums... QUICK_EDIT
I like Blizzard better, their games are better polished and they support their games longer, they are still patching SC for example.
Quote:
Remember the intermissions between missions in starcraft? Those were horrible
I kinda liked those, but I liked the FMV's better and remember many of the elements of the SC story happened ingame. But I like the WS way of story telling best; real people ftw.
When it comes to playability I usally play a unmodded EALA game for a few weeks. I have played unmodded SC for years (kinda stupid to compare a 1998 game to a 2007 game though).
When it comes to balance I have never seen a single unit getting spammed in SC. (except for zerglings)
My favorite game is Dune 2, my 2nd favorite game is Tiberian Dawn, my 3rd favorite game is Red Alert, my 4th favorite game is StarCraft, my 5th favorite game is Tiberian Sun. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Both sides, have more or less 'Over rated Games.' xD
Even though I like Both, in the sense they do create 'Real Time Strategies.'
If it wasn't an RTS, I wouldn't really like it. >.>
The Campaign for Sc2 was upgraded where it's no longer looking like Faces, in a command center/Hive/etc.
EA mainly spends most it's money on... Actors, Even though RA3 has the Best support of all their RTS games. So far. >.>
Sc2 is awesome, and will keep getting support even after 'it's dead and buried' more or less old. >.>
EA only supports their games for like 1 or 2 years. Before they bury it, in the sands. Even though right now they are doing better... QUICK_EDIT
I'm sorry but Blizzard with world of warcraft simply destroyed anything they made before except starcraft. I'll have to vote EA. Generals and Red Alert 3 are classics. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Epic failure detected.
RA3 is stuffed so full of pop trends and internet memes to sell in a year we'll all look back and find less than half of it funny. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. Last edited by Lt Albrecht on Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Epic failure detected.
RA3 is stuffed so full of po trends and internet memes to sell in a year we'll all look back and find less than half of it funny.
Just because it's the same shit under a different name doesn't make it a BAD game. I've had fun playing it and that's pretty much what I want from a video game. The AI is good (I was shocked when they undeployed their mcv when I tried to capture it), the units are good and the gameplay is fun. It has the typical C&C style and I'm glad they didn't modify it much. It is a worthy successor to Red Alert 2, they mantained key units of the game such as apocalypse tanks, kirov airships and tesla coils and removed not-so famous units like the robot tank. It's like, when you talk about red alert units you always talk about units such as apocalypse not units such as the robot tank. Yeah it might not be as good as red alert 2 but who cares. At least it has an oldschool gameplay unlike most of the shitty games that get released today... But that's just my opinion, of course!
And yeah Westwood would have done a much better job. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
It isn't like RA2 that much at all, the sovs have fighter jets, the whole thing is sickly in love with overexaggerated naval combat, basic tanks aren't available until tier 2, the funnyness has gone too far and there are no "hang on, this si serious... o.0" moments. I don't give a 3 legged illama if westwood would have made a better one, the fact is we had to get an eA RA3 why not get a good EA RA3 instead of.. this. I played it and it's just... eugh. Barely enough different infantry, no countries, 9- land vechs per side, a weird fixation with building on water and not even a glimpse of any bizzre cold war inspiration, RA2 had all sorts of background in Cold war experiments, the CIA and KGB had multi-million dollar psychic programs, the CIA invesdigated psychadellic chemicals, there was the whole THEL thing, every crazy idea in RA2 can be brought back to a point of obscure and deadly truth. RA2 is spaghetti with each strand tied to the gound. RA3 just feels liek baseless, starchy mush. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
I once took out about 10 Giga Fortresses with that.
Quote:
I'm not so sure. Westwood were lazy in many ways. it's wonder that they stayed afloat as long as they did.
This also explains why games such as yuri's revenge had poor AI and were bugged. But at least they provided excellent support for modding, one thing that EA didn't for RA3/C&C3. So that, if you don't like something or you found a bug, you just fix it by yourself.
Lt Albrecht wrote:
It isn't like RA2 that much at all, the sovs have fighter jets, the whole thing is sickly in love with overexaggerated naval combat, basic tanks aren't available until tier 2, the funnyness has gone too far and there are no "hang on, this si serious... o.0" moments. I don't give a 3 legged illama if westwood would have made a better one, the fact is we had to get an eA RA3 why not get a good EA RA3 instead of.. this. I played it and it's just... eugh. Barely enough different infantry, no countries, 9- land vechs per side, a weird fixation with building on water and not even a glimpse of any bizzre cold war inspiration, RA2 had all sorts of background in Cold war experiments, the CIA and KGB had multi-million dollar psychic programs, the CIA invesdigated psychadellic chemicals, there was the whole THEL thing, every crazy idea in RA2 can be brought back to a point of obscure and deadly truth. RA2 is spaghetti with each strand tied to the gound. RA3 just feels liek baseless, starchy mush.
As I've already said red alert 3 is not as good as red alert 2 (WELL THATS KINDA OBVIOUS since RA2 is the BEST game ever). Yeah I agree the naval combat is overexaggerated but in red alert 2 naval presence in my opinion was too small. Also every red alert game got less serious. Red Alert 1 was pretty much a serious game. If you remove the chronosphere, the iron curtain, the giant ants and that little girl who can kill a rifleman with a pistol you get a realistic game after all. Red Alert 2 was not realistic (Floating discs, kirov airships, I can take down that airship with a pistol in real life, etc.). Red Alert 3 continues to become less serious and this is not to be considered a bad thing.
But yeah the campaign was definitively bland...
Anyways don't get me wrong, I'm not an EA fanboy, far from being one (I hate them for deleting tiberian twilight/incursion and giving shitty support for modding) but I do actually enjoy their c&c games, especially generals. C&C 3 has to be the c&c game I like the less, it has a very slow gameplay compared to others and the infantry squad system just plain sucks. And where's the tiberian flora/fauna? Bah... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I'm sorry but Blizzard with world of warcraft simply destroyed anything they made before except starcraft. I'll have to vote EA. Generals and Red Alert 3 are classics.
RA3 and Generals "classics"?!?!?!?!??????
What the ztype are you smoking!?!?!?!?!? TA, Starcraft, Red Alert 1 and Warcraft II are classics!
Generals is highly unbalanced, not to mention contradictory to the CnC "theme".
Red Alert 3 was just ridiculous. (The "plot", the balance, the premise all of it was executed horribly. Need I mention EA's "support"?) QUICK_EDIT
What the ztype are you smoking!?!?!?!?!? TA, Starcraft, Red Alert 1 and Warcraft II are classics!
Yes they are. Generals is a classic of modern times.
Team SomeGuy wrote:
Generals is highly unbalanced, not to mention contradictory to the CnC "theme".
Unbalanced? I'm sorry but I did not notice that. Maybe it's because of the generals system, like superweapon general, demolition general... Well to tell you the truth, I always use vanilla sides. Or well, not that much anymore since I modded my Generals long time ago.
I also hated the countries system in red alert 2 and I'm glad EA took it out. I mean it could have been GOOD if there was an actual balance between the factions. For example choosing Cuba was next to useless because terrorists were the most useless units in the game. While Lybia had the demolition truck that if used with the iron curtain is the strongest weapon in the game. THIS is what I call unbalanced.
Team SomeGuy wrote:
Red Alert 3 was just ridiculous. (The "plot", the balance, the premise all of it was executed horribly. Need I mention EA's "support"?)
The plot indeed needed some more work (If Cherdenko killed Einstein then how come nazi germany STILL doesn't exist?) but I like the idea of fightning the empire of the rising sun. The balance is good except in the expansion where it was ruined by harbinger gunships and giga fortresses. I admit the campaign was a bit bland and also some of the skirmish maps sucked. The maps are too symmetrical. This is why there is a map editor and a random map generator.
And EA's support is the main reason of my hate towards them. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
ZH's only redeeming characteristic was its moddability, which is why there are over a dozen high qualiy mods released/in production for it. Stock gameplay was mediocre and basically came down to spamming SWs, WFs and (money building/unit). This is improved in many mods and you get things like shockwave, rise of the reds and Cold War Crisis amongst others, which are brilliant.
RA3 is not balanced. Their solution to the OP Shogun battleship? You shouldn't let your opponent build one. GAME BALANCE FAIL.
RA3 is not a classic, classics are designed eiher for the long haul (to recoup costs over years, not months) or have something interesting and original. TD and RA are classics, not only were they very good to begn with but they have become enshrined in the memories of those who played them. Generals is a rougly ambling and wandering half-hearted attempt to make a "modern warfare" game without offending anyone, the terrorists are righteous, the chinese are merely a little unsympathetic to those in the firing line and every US unit is so damne heroic it makes me want to puke.
Thankfully it can be modded into a decent game (cue regurgitation of list).
The iron curtain was never going to be good for balance... in RA demos exploded if IC/Chrono'd, this should have been kept in RA2.
And the maps in RA3 are atrocious, they are all the same type of mindlessly balanced "tournament" maps. How come they can' balance an asymmetric map when westwood were doing it in the 90s with TD, RA, TS,RA2 and YR? We all know Westwood were lazy jackasses, but even ZH had more non-mirrored maps than RA3! Does ths meed EA are merely lazy, greedy jackasses with money? Quite possibly. We lost jackasses reliant on our sales and gained a huge company to whoe the little blip in title #4656547's sales don't matter because there are 10000 other titles out . It makes me sick to see them pump out all this trash, they've even made the sims for phones, DSs, the Wii. What next? The Sims on graphic calculator? _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Anyways, Blizzard has my vote. Quality games come first for them, and thats what most gamers like myself really care about. EA on the other hand is just out there looking for money (sucks for them that piracy exists!)
As an experienced player in Starcraft and Warcraft 3 before, and TBH both of these games involve more strategy and tactics, and are more well balanced than RA2 (I hate to say this) and Generals.
In addition to all this, Blizzard is shockingly meticulous at updating and patching their games. For example, about 14 patches have been released for Starcraft (and counting), and IDK how many there are for WC3.
Now if it were Blizzard vs Westwood, Ww would have my vote QUICK_EDIT
I tend to go on a game by game basis. EA has made some good titles, so has Blizzard, so have a bunch of others. I would rather be a connoisseur of the RTS genre than of a specific company.
Overall I might see a preview differently depending on the company, but I'd still give it a chance to be entertaining before damning it. QUICK_EDIT
Both EA and Blizzard are good though they both have downsides. I only played Starcraft 1 but it was an awesome game (CnC Generals copied their idea...). Blizzard also spent years perfecting Starcraft 1 with many patches, which shows that they do not want their classics to be crappy and outdated (they may do the same to Starcraft 2 if the need arises). But yeah Starcraft is hard to mod...
As for EA, they were great in the past but not as good now. Examples are how cartoony RA3 have become (shrink ray, japanese school girls, transformers, mammoth "tank", etc) and the Fast and Furious trend that has taken over the NFS series (GODDAMMIT!!! I WANT MAH FERRARIS AND MCLARENS BACK AND ALSO REMOVE DA DREADED NOS AND FANCY BODYKITS!!!). If you've played the past EA games, you would realize that they're better (ROAD RASH FTW!!!) But still, EA does make quality games and support modding a lot.
Both are great imo. They just want to make money with video games
One last sentence: GODDAMMIT!!! WHY DID EALA REMOVED YURI?!?!?!? _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
I think blizard ruled (starcraft1 and daiblo 1 & 2)
but i have like some EA games like medal of honor and battlefield 1942 for example but as for some game like Nuclear stirke was boring as hell
As EA lack for support yeah that was one. But EA do try to make good games its not easy you know. _________________ Link to a document to see what mods i have and/or working on or working with
Click QUICK_EDIT
it still doesn't good as Lan play. it doesn't make sense when i play the game with my friend in same place but need to connect to B-Net to increase more delay/lag rate. more than that i hear they said B-net isn't free if it was real i can say even EA isn't profiteer like this. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: National Reference Laboratory for IPNV
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject:
You know that there are several unofficial servers for every blizzard game there is. Just play in one of those, which also tend to be local servers so the lag won't be too much.
Still no LAN sucks, but it isn't the end of the world (and by checking the reactions I wouldn't be surprised if they add it back).
Also never heard before that Battlenet 2.0 is not going to be free, IIRC, Karune, the community manager, said the opposite. Also some extra research, says that the if there might be some paid services, but the basic account and play service is going to be free.
Anyways, there will be alternative servers...
Rob Pardo wrote:
With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.
you don't know how slow of internet in my country .
i use 2MB service but i still got ping 300+ for every FPS game i play online [ and sure they kick me out after i join for sec ] .
in Guilldwars [it's only one MMO game i play] sometime the ping gone to 3000! ]
even Ra3 or C&c3 unit delay for 1-2 sec to response my order.
that's why i hate to play online game so much. for me LAN is only 1 Multiplayer mode that give me real fun. i can play with my friend in same place , Laugh when someone do something stupid in game even talk to exchange an idea together without type the message.
but i will ok. if they discover something that can replace this mode and make it stable same as LAN play [and it must be free] . QUICK_EDIT
They work functionally but breed a very bad reputation and "fanbase". (ICCUP is known as being very segregationist and hateful to differing ranks) QUICK_EDIT
You do realise that EA is actually changing its business model? Now I know every idiot here is going to go 'OMFG TEH SCUD BUG IN ZERO HOUR'.
Yet none of you even play Zero Hour probably. How many years was that? 6 years? EA's changed, a lot, and has gotten much better. Though I know the EA=Satan bandwagon is ztyping massive, may as well cram everybody else in there.
Isn't it edgy to hate EA? What the ztype has EA honestly done to you? or Blizzard? They're the same thing. Corporations trying to make money. These company wars are just as retarded as console wars, especially in a community that is more to the left then the right. EA and Blizzard are capitalists, they want your money firstly. They just have two different ways of getting it.
Also, major LOLs at the guy saying Westwood supported modding. ztype Westwood. They were about as supportive of modding as a case of syphilis. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: National Reference Laboratory for IPNV
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject:
@Team SomeGuy:
There are hundreds of different servers, and yeah I know that ICCUP doesn't have a very good reputation, but not every server is like that, there are some that are better, some that are worst in comparison to Battlenet, but in the end all that matters is how near it is to you, the amount of lag, and if your friends are willing to play on it.
I usually play Starcraft on the server "Tarreo", but that's a local server from my country, though there's a lot of alternative servers in South America since the nearest official server is the US servers, which is quite far away...
Anyways a quick search on google would be enough to find them . QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Of Blizzard and EA
).
.
. It makes me sick to see them pump out all this trash, they've even made the sims for phones, DSs, the Wii. What next? The Sims on graphic calculator?
