Blizzard is an example of why 'waiting' is a good thing.

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

NobuoMusicMaker

Blizzard is Blizzard. They're in a league of their own. They can make a game based on a 2000-era 3D engine, release it in 2004, and GameSpot will still give them a 9 or even a 10 in graphics (yes, I'm talking about WC3 and WoW, and even SC2 to an extent). Not even Kojima has the talent that Blizzard has at making games that are worth waiting 3, 4, even 5 and 6 years for.

As there are examples of why waiting is a good thing; there are also examples of the contrary; games that get pushed back 2 years and fail completely upon release.

Konami is a quality developer, however, and I believe they'll deliver.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

mjarantilla

Blizzard is Blizzard. They're in a league of their own. They can take a game based on 1999-era 3D engine and GameSpot will still give them a 9 or even a 10 in graphics. Not even Kojima has the talent that Blizzard has at making games that are worth waiting 3, 4, even 5 and 6 years for.

You mean MGS2 AAA 9.6 /your post

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

NobuoMusicMaker

Completely wrong analogy.. You see, while we are waiting for the next blizzard game, we have alot to keep us busy in the meantime. So, we aren't waiting for the "next game" cause there is too many of those to count.. What we are waiting for is "next blizzard game"!

So does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever made? SWEET ACTION!?!?!? I'm going to go preorder suckers.... Har har har. All funny stuff aside TC, I know what you're saying and I do agree that I have no problem with a game taking the required time to come out.Ibacai

I guess "waiting" would only apply if we know the game was being worked on rather than being on the backburner. ;)

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]So does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever made? SWEET ACTION!?!?!? I'm going to go preorder suckers.... Har har har. All funny stuff aside TC, I know what you're saying and I do agree that I have no problem with a game taking the required time to come out.NobuoMusicMaker

I guess "waiting" would only apply if we know the game was being worked on rather than being on the backburner. ;)

But if Duke Nukem Forever ever gets finish it's gonna be freaken awsome. I can dream..

You think waiting is a good thing? If you bought a 360 you would be playing games like Oblivion, Rainbow 6, etc etc month before they even came out for the PS3.

The bad thing is that you can wait ages for PS3 games but the game so far are only as good as the 360 game or the PS3 game can't match the 360 version.

I still don't understand the power of the waitstation?

I remember a certain game called Pray. It was developed for over 10 years. It sure turned out great :roll:Arsuz

~point above post~

I highly doubt they worked on the game for that long, but I think you meant Doom 3. It was shoved in the deepest corners of Id. Maybe they made the game, but creating a new engine means starting from scratch.

Completely wrong analogy.. You see, while we are waiting for the next blizzard game, we have alot to keep us busy in the meantime. So, we aren't waiting for the "next game" cause there is too many of those to count.. What we are waiting is "next blizzard game"!

Chofee

We're waiting for developers for the PS3 to finish their games when they are finished. And in the meantime, as you say, I have plenty of PS3 games to play.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

NobuoMusicMaker

Blizzard is Blizzard. They're in a league of their own. They can take a game based on 1999-era 3D engine and GameSpot will still give them a 9 or even a 10 in graphics. Not even Kojima has the talent that Blizzard has at making games that are worth waiting 3, 4, even 5 and 6 years for.

You mean MGS2 AAA 9.6 /your post

MGS2 was announced only like a year before it was released. World of WarCraft and WarCraft III were each announced over three years before either was released (in 2001 and 1999 respectively). And MGS2 used the latest graphics technology at the time to bolster its hype. WarCraft III had barely any graphics upgrades between 1999 and 2002, ditto for WoW between 2001 and 2004.

This is exactly what PS3 fans are doing - it is a piece of hardware - if it is good a year from now, then I will have not only saved however much the price drops by, but I will have enjoyed years of gaming that fanboys who are loyal to *platforms* rather than *games* will have missed.

You want a good game - fine - but tell me, why would you imply we should back a *platform* based on waiting?

We're waiting for developers for the PS3 to finish their games when they are finished. And in the meantime, as you say, I have plenty of PS3 games to play.

NobuoMusicMaker

Not nearly as many as 360 or PC owners, but ok..

I love Blizzard, but the so called "quality" for years of waiting isn't exactly there. Every single game ever released by Blizzard since WC2 required some pretty extensive patching to get right. At times the fixes didn't even come till and expansion was released, namely WC3. Don't get me started on WoW.

I don't disagree, but extra developement is relative to who it is.

I love Blizzard, but the so called "quality" for years of waiting isn't exactly there. Every single game ever released by Blizzard since WC2 required some pretty extensive patching to get right. At times the fixes didn't even come till and expansion was released, namely WC3. Don't get me started on WoW.

I don't disagree, but extra developement is relative to who it is.

CassiusGaius

Those are mostly balance tweaks, and most games that compete with Blizzard's would require FAR more than just a few patches because their problems are a lot more fundamental. Blizzard spends a lot more time refining the overall design direction, rather than worrying about fiddling with the numbers.

MGS2 was announced only like a year before it was released. World of WarCraft and WarCraft III were each announced over three years before either was released (in 2001 and 1999 respectively). And MGS2 used the latest graphics technology at the time to bolster its hype. WarCraft III had barely any graphics upgrades between 1999 and 2002, ditto for WoW between 2001 and 2004.

mjarantilla

Not really sure where you going with the graphics thing. PC has scaling graphic capability, consoles don't. E3 2000 MGS2 trailer showed quite a lot of graphics, but it showed destructible objects, smart A.I., a giant leap in controls compared to MGS1, great voice overs, ingame cinematics, a deep story in the making, and a production value as high as the sky goes.

Clearly, things that aren't related to graphics. Same with Blizzard. Balancing units, classes, making sure all the quests work, making sure the game is fun. That's the polish that is worth the wait.

If nVidia released a graphics card that they promised would be better than any other GPU on the market tommorow, and yet told us we had to wait *two years* to get games that would run on that GPU, and until then we could live with old games, oh, and by the way, all the popular, great games on the market coming out *weren't* going to work on that GPU - how many of us would be on the forums saying "just wait and see - nVidia's WAITY-9-HUNDRED is gonna rock your socks!"?

This is exactly what PS3 fans are doing - it is a piece of hardware - if it is good a year from now, then I will have not only saved however much the price drops by, but I will have enjoyed years of gaming that fanboys who are loyal to *platforms* rather than *games* will have missed.

You want a good game - fine - but tell me, why would you imply we should back a *platform* based on waiting?

subrosian

The PS3 is a tool for developers. Developers are taking their time to figure out the PS3 and making their game right. And all the developers that announced games on the PS3 have already shown great stuff and developed great games in the past.

To turn your question to a question that relates to the topic, why should we back Blizzard based on waiting? Because we know that their games are going to be great. This is the same for the PS3.

I love Blizzard, but the so called "quality" for years of waiting isn't exactly there. Every single game ever released by Blizzard since WC2 required some pretty extensive patching to get right. At times the fixes didn't even come till and expansion was released, namely WC3. Don't get me started on WoW.

I don't disagree, but extra developement is relative to who it is.

CassiusGaius

For SC, the balance was pretty damn near perfect. Other developers won't even try to attempt 3 unique races. Even Chris Metzen, the guy behind Supreme Commander had said that doing 3 unique races and finding the balance will require "it's done when it's done" deadline. Sure, once testing was done and super competitive gameplay and exploits found some balance issues, they are fixed then.

For WC3, the priestess' Starfire raped everything when used right and Blizzard saw that and fixed it. The game is always evolving to be perfect but the released content was near perfect to begin with because of the time spent.

WoW was extremely fun, the questing system was perfect and well thought out. The fact that it didn't have a PVP system from the getgo or Blackwing Lair-like end game isn't the issue. The game stood out to be worth every penny spent for all the time it took to test and it's the top mmo and possibly the top game in this industry.

The PS3 is a tool for developers. Developers are taking their time to figure out the PS3 and making their game right. And all the developers that announced games on the PS3 have already shown great stuff and developed great games in the past.

To turn your question to a question that relates to the topic, why should we back Blizzard based on waiting? Because we know that their games are going to be great. This is the same for the PS3.

NobuoMusicMaker

Why should people back Blizzard? They liked Starcraft (a game) and it costs them the grand total of $0 to say "hmm, I bet Starcraft 2 will be fun." Now, tell me how much money the Sony fanboys who have bought a PS3, and are starved for games, have spent? $600.

We don't know that Starcraft 2 is going to be great either - there is no guarantee that MGS4, Starcraft 2, or Halo 3 are going to be great games. This is exactly the point people have been trying to get across - PS3-only, aka pure PS3 diehards, or what we call Sony fanboys, are *waiting* based on the assumption that all these PS3 titles - which are only being tentatively scheduled for 2008 because PS3 sales are too low to support releasing them now - are going to be better than anything the competition can release.

Blizzard is only one firm in PC gaming however, whereas the PS3 is a whole console. You expect the former to make you wait, their only one developer.

Plus, Blizzard games last longer than pretty much any other games out there, so the wait is justified. People still play WoW, Starcraft, Diablo 2 and WC3 in huge numbers.

The PS3 is not, nor has it ever been, a "tool for developers" - the tool for developers would be the dev kit they run on workstation PCs in order to build games. None of what you have said explains why gamers should invest in a platform that will not have a solid games library until late next year.

Why should people back Blizzard? They liked Starcraft (a game) and it costs them the grand total of $0 to say "hmm, I bet Starcraft 2 will be fun." Now, tell me how much money the Sony fanboys who have bought a PS3, and are starved for games, have spent? $600.

We don't know that Starcraft 2 is going to be great either - there is no guarantee that MGS4, Starcraft 2, or Halo 3 are going to be great games. This is exactly the point people have been trying to get across - PS3-only, aka pure PS3 diehards, or what we call Sony fanboys, are *waiting* based on the assumption that all these PS3 titles - which are only being tentatively scheduled for 2008 because PS3 are too low to support releasing them now - are going to be better than anything the competition can release.

subrosian

PS3 devkit = PS3. I'm not sure how you think you can twist that one.

Well, I could say they bought a computer, but no one said you had to buy a PS3 now. Go ahead and wait until your game comes out to buy a PS3. No matter what, that kind of thinking is practically a PS3 purchase. But I had already justified the NOW purchase. There's already great games out, backward's compatibility is near perfect and better with upconverted 1080p ability, and the media features are great. I'm not arguing to the PS3 owners, I'm arguing against those "waitstation" bashers because waiting is a good thing.

Starcraft 2 is going to be great and there's no question about that.

Blizzard is only one firm in PC gaming however, whereas the PS3 is a whole console. You expect the former to make you wait, their only one developer.

Plus, Blizzard games last longer than pretty much any other games out there, so the wait is justified. People still play WoW, Starcraft, Diablo 2 and WC3 in huge numbers.

Danm_999

Yes, Blizzard is one developer. And the PS3 is a host of many developers. All of them somewhat doing what Blizzard is doing even though Blizzard doesn't have deadlines most of the time. So PS3 is a collective force of developers tapping into the PS3's potential, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah Blizzard has the greatest replayability. Can't argue with you there. But some games have great replayability too. I'm just taking Blizzard as the pinnacle of "wait for it" development and using it to argue for why the PS3 big names are taking their time to come out.

Sony =/= Blizzard

Lasden

Sony =/= every developer for the PS3.

Not really sure where you going with the graphics thing. PC has scaling graphic capability, consoles don't. NobuoMusicMaker

I've played WC3 on a top-of-the-line machine AND on a POS laptop with minimal specs, and the experience was exactly the same. The only difference was in a very slight framerate boost and a very minor texture upgrade between the highest and lowest graphics options.

E3 2000 MGS2 trailer showed quite a lot of graphics, but it showed destructible objects, smart A.I., a giant leap in controls compared to MGS1, great voice overs, ingame cinematics, a deep story in the making, and a production value as high as the sky goes.NobuoMusicMaker

Exactly. My point is that Blizzard can make a great game without having to stretch the limits of technology while doing it. Their games are great because of fundamental design merit. That's why Blizzard has had an almost unbroken string of AAAs going back to the first WarCraft (Diablo II is their only AA game, and even then only because it used a 1996-era 2d graphics engine). That's what makes Blizzard games worth waiting four or five years for: because once they're out, they will remain enjoyable over another ten years, and will even compete with the latest generation of games aesthetically despite having primitive graphics. That's more than can be said for pretty much any other game developer, even Nintendo and SCEA.

Here's a question: Would MGS2 have scored NEARLY as well as it did if it had been built on a 1997-era graphics engine? Somehow, I doubt it. Yet that is essentially what WarCraft III and World of WarCraft did when they were released. I'll bet that if WarCraft III was released today, it would still get an 8 in graphics in the old system, despite all the super-advanced PC games coming out, whereas any other game from 2002 would get 7s or 6s.

So I say again: Blizzard is in a league of its own. You can't use Blizzard as an example for your original argument, because they are the exception to the rule.

As there are examples of why waiting is a good thing; there are also examples of the contrary; games that get pushed back 2 years and fail completely upon release.

Konami is a quality developer, however, and I believe they'll deliver.

ToScA-

Konami always makes great games.I do not think I have played a game of theirs that I thought was utterly terrible, most of their games are really good. Ones in recent memory would have to be any of the Metal Gear games for the PS2 as well s Twin Snakes for the GC, plus Boktai on the GBA which was a little different, but still a great pair of games as well. They recently put out Lunar Knights, which is sort of a spinoff to the Boktai games and uses similar gameplay mechanics as well as the same art style. Great game that I have enjoyed immensly and I hope the Konami continues to create great games.

I think what mjarantilla is trying to say is that unlike blizzard, ps3 developers are taking forever because of the technology. Blizzard on the other hand take a long time because they are working on the gameplay.

I think what mjarantilla is trying to say is that unlike blizzard, ps3 developers are taking forever because of the technology. Blizzard on the other hand take a long time because they are working on the gameplay.Ontain

Yeah, you hit it on the head. Has anyone heard Blizzard say ANYTHING about the advanced graphics technology they use in their games? At all? Despite selling to a market (PC gaming) that absolutely craves advanced graphics? The most I've heard is the upgrade of their two flagship franchises to 3D with WarCraft III and SCII, and the reverse-kinematics technology they use in the Protoss Walkers in StarCraft II, which isn't really that advanced in the first place (Spore demonstrated something way more advanced two years ago).

Then you have Kojima, claiming that there are more polygons in Snake's moustache in MGS4 than in any character model in MGS3, and Factor 5 preening their 1080p graphics in Lair, and Ninja Theory demonstrating how they invented a new kind of HDR lighting, and so on and so forth. There's a huge difference in priorities between Blizzard and any of the PS3 devs, or even 360 and, to a smaller extent, Wii devs.

LOL..... BLizzard isa developer, designing 1 or 2 games at most, at a time.

THe PS3 is a piece of hardware that exists to allow people to play video games, your analogy = horrible

PS. Please never use Blizzard and PS3 in the same topic ever again.... OH NO, look what you made me do.

Blizzard is only one firm in PC gaming however, whereas the PS3 is a whole console. You expect the former to make you wait, their only one developer.

Danm_999

Logic....It burns!!! Big difference between a 600dollar paperweight...and just waiting for one game.

Whats is worse...Waiting for just MGS4? Or waiting for MGS4...FFXIII...GT...Socom 4...Darke's...and dozens more. Unless of course the OP cares to argue one game equal an entire system.

All those PS3 bashers out there, your 'waiting' argument has no affect.

One of Blizzard's philosophy behind their development is "it's done when it's done." So even though I'm enjoying the games right now, I have no qualms over waiting for great releases for the PS3. The longer the wait, the better the game gets.

You can have your rushed, low production games all you want. I'll just wait until Kojima shows the world how it's done then the developers will start the spark.

NobuoMusicMaker

everyone is too busy having the life sucked out of them by WoW to notice. :(

But there are tons of other games to play on the system Blizzard develops on, correct?

everyone is too busy having the life sucked out of them by WoW to notice. :(

Mfals

Diablo 2 was sucking souls long before WoW came to be :P

[QUOTE="Mfals"]

everyone is too busy having the life sucked out of them by WoW to notice. :(

Meu2k7

Diablo 2 was sucking souls long before WoW came to be :P

Not to mention SC. Zerg rush gogogogo

why wait when you don't have to?CaseyWegner

Because you don't have to deal with rushed games such as GoW, F2, LoZ:TP, and WW:SM to name a few... /sarcasm

Blizzard is pretty much the only developer in the world that can touch or dare I say rival Nintendo.Dencore

We'd have to see a successful console out of them first before that happens :D

What games has Sony actually developed by themselves?Arnalion

Thye own many different gaming divisions.

[QUOTE="Dencore"]Blizzard is pretty much the only developer in the world that can touch or dare I say rival Nintendo.Zenkuso

We'd have to see a successful console out of them first before that happens :D

I seriously would buy it. I'd love for a third party publisher to create a console.

But they obviously don't have enough money. Maybe Konami can do it *they make over a billion each year on software sales alone, not counting there arcade scene and anime scene *they made Death Note and Monster* I mean would anyone else buy it?

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"]

[QUOTE="Dencore"]Blizzard is pretty much the only developer in the world that can touch or dare I say rival Nintendo.Dencore

We'd have to see a successful console out of them first before that happens :D

I seriously would buy it. I'd love for a third party publisher to create a console.

But they obviously don't have enough money. Maybe Konami can do it *they make over a billion each year on software sales alone, not counting there arcade scene and anime scene *they made Death Note and Monster* I mean would anyone else buy it?

There owned by vivendi so its not like they could get the money to do it but yeah konami, temco or bandai would probably be the only third parties that could pull it off in my opinion cause they have the multitude of games to make it succedd.

[QUOTE="Dencore"][QUOTE="Zenkuso"]

[QUOTE="Dencore"]Blizzard is pretty much the only developer in the world that can touch or dare I say rival Nintendo.Zenkuso

We'd have to see a successful console out of them first before that happens :D

I seriously would buy it. I'd love for a third party publisher to create a console.

But they obviously don't have enough money. Maybe Konami can do it *they make over a billion each year on software sales alone, not counting there arcade scene and anime scene *they made Death Note and Monster* I mean would anyone else buy it?

There owned by vivendi so its not like they could get the money to do it but yeah konami, temco or bandai would probably be the only third parties that could pull it off in my opinion cause they have the multitude of games to make it succedd.

Seriously these big corps. just don't really care about gamers let alone gaming. SONY literally killed 2D gaming. Microsoft dumbs down PC games and charges for maps and online. Honestly Square-Enix was talking about doing a handheld but.....yeah.

Anyway I'd like Capcom to do it but I don't think they have the funds.

I know Tecmo doesn't, and I don't think Bandai.

But Konami is very wealthy so I'd love to see a Konami console and a Vividi to finally see a true western console.