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.

NobuoMusicMaker

Here's the problem, a little over 7 months ago bovines throughout the land tried to convince us that there would be no waiting, that the PS3 would not only deliver now (or then, whatever) but that it would take the lead now (or then, whatever). No one minds waiting for good things, Blizzard being an excellent example. The difference between Blizzard and you guys is that Blizzard can keep their mouths shut in the downtime between their masterpieces. Cows just can't seem to do this. PS3's domination is always around the corner, over the next bend, and we're all gonna be sorry when (if) it gets here. Meanwhile we're all suckers for enjoying, "rushed, low production games" as you so objectively put it. So go ahead and vilify people who have tired of the "just wait" mantra all you want, because it's only going to make them even more impatient and critical of anything the PS3 ever delivers.

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.

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

Except Blizzard doesn't make you pay extra money to buy their games before they come out.

Why not wait to buy the PS3 when it actually has some worthwhile games, and when it's not at its most expensive?

Blizzard has a decent track record that warrents waiting for. Scratch that, not a decent track, an excellent track. This is in addition that people expect to wait for a Blizzard game since they always do numerous delays.

The PS3? The console is already out there, the waiting is done. Waiting for other developers? No thanks, they aren't Blizzard. Few developers out there refine gameplay as much as Blizzard does. The focus of Blizzard games are on building a game that draws people into the story and gameplay.Go forgameplay, an intriquing story; not super duper graphics with ankle deep content.

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.

mjarantilla

Again, not sure where you're going with this. Blizzard does great to keep the scaling specs to a minimum so everyone can play it.

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.

mjarantilla

You say Blizzard can make great games without pushing the graphics like Crysis yet you note Diablo 2 scored lower because of its graphics? Obviously, Blizzard does make sure it's doing a decent job with the technology. World of Warcraft models push the same amount of polygons as Guild Wars, which people think GW looks better when it's a design difference. Starcraft 2 pushes more polygons for each model than there is on a World of Warcraft model, so they are pushing the technology. What they won't do is push it so it becomes unplayable for the majority like Supreme Commander. Blizzard pushes everything.

Would Starcraft score as well as it did if it was using Warcraft 1's engine and terrible attack and movement animation with terrible voicing during briefings and low quality music? No, of course not. You can use that argument for anything. Diablo 2 uses that and paid for using just an upgraded Diablo 1 engine. But that's not what you're talking about, it's about gameplay. If MGS2 had its gameplay as intact on the PS2 and put on the PS1, then it will still score 9.6. The gameplay is great and its espionage system is the best out there.

"Blizzard is a league on their own" is pretty much your excuse to keep bashing the PS3. Because everyone knows Blizzard games are worth waiting for, and so are the upcoming PS3 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.

Ontain

And PS3 developers aren't working on gameplay? Wow, you must have really bought into the sheep's logic and start thinking that PS3 is just a graphics machine.

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.

Zandeus

Every PS3 developer are designing 1 or 2 games at a time. PS3 is that and a platform for developers to put their games on. You're logic fails.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

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.

Acenso

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.

You didn't read anything? Waiting for all the games. Development cycle takes that long especially this time around when the technology is new. PS3 upcoming games are a collective of "one game" if that explains things to you better.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

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.

NobuoMusicMaker

And PS3 developers aren't working on gameplay? Wow, you must have really bought into the sheep's logic and start thinking that PS3 is just a graphics machine.

did i say they weren't? :roll: ps3 games are taking long because of technology issues. it's not the gameplay issues that are making them get delayed. blizzard on the other hand doesn't delay their games because of technology. they delay because they want the gameplay to be as good as possible.

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.

NobuoMusicMaker

Chris Taylor. Chris Metzen is Blizzard's lore master and game artist (Even though Samwise is infinitely better as an artist).

Besides, Blizzard's "wait until it's done" philosophy is for themselves. Sony and how it's handling it's console cannot be compared to a single developer's philosophy, especially when waiting for various games to hit a console tends to yield varying results. It makes more sense to gauge the future release of a single game coming from a single developer than gauge multiple games from multiple developers as a whole.

With Bill Roper gone, I wonder if Starcraft 2 can step up the plate.

With Bill Roper gone, I wonder if Starcraft 2 can step up the plate.

Zero_Fate_

I don't think too many people are expecting Starcraft to be improved upon. A few people view it as perfect already and people probably would have snapped up Starcraft 2 had it soley been an upgrade in graphics. It's going to be intresting to see how far Starcraft 2 goes in comparasion, since it's going to be scaling a rather huge mountain.

With Bill Roper gone, I wonder if Starcraft 2 can step up the plate.

Zero_Fate_

Rob Pardo had a bigger impact on Blizzard's RTS games than Bill Roper and he's still in Blizzard.

Even though it has already been mentioned, like Blizzard themselves it needs to be talked about... Blizzard is Blizzard, they are in a league of their own. Comparing waiting for their games to such games as Duke Nukem Forever or most of the titles on the PS3, Xbox 360 or Wii is an insult to Blizzard and its games.foxhound_fox

Wow, maybe you don't read but I said, almost right away, a game like Duke Nukem is not being developed on.

And I don't know how meriting Blizzard's philosophy by taking the time to add extra polish insults Blizzard. You're obviously finding ways to seperate development times so you can say "WAITSTATION" without taking a shot at Blizzard. It doesn't work your way.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]why wait when you don't have to?Zor

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

Jaffe said GoW2 was rushed and he would rather had some more time, but the first one recieved as much time as it can get. TP's release was extremely terrible and the fact that Nintendo was purposely holding it back for the Wii launch is just disgusting. It didn't even do well to push the graphics. 360 games had tons of development time, so I'm not sure where you are going around with that one. Forza 2 was released this late in the 360's life. If GT5 releases 2 years after PS3's release, it uses the same amount of development time as Forza 2, except Forza 2 is incredibley unpolished on the graphics end.

Here's the problem, a little over 7 months ago bovines throughout the land tried to convince us that there would be no waiting, that the PS3 would not only deliver now (or then, whatever) but that it would take the lead now (or then, whatever). No one minds waiting for good things, Blizzard being an excellent example. The difference between Blizzard and you guys is that Blizzard can keep their mouths shut in the downtime between their masterpieces. Cows just can't seem to do this. PS3's domination is always around the corner, over the next bend, and we're all gonna be sorry when (if) it gets here. Meanwhile we're all suckers for enjoying, "rushed, low production games" as you so objectively put it. So go ahead and vilify people who have tired of the "just wait" mantra all you want, because it's only going to make them even more impatient and critical of anything the PS3 ever delivers.

D0013ER

7 months ago, they didn't promise all announced games would be launched right away. Warhawk should have been a launch game but they kept it back and are doing it right. And I'm not sure how SC2's announcement is keeping it shut. Everyone pretty much knows Starcraft 2 is going to own every game out there. And I'm not appeasing the cow crowd, I'm keeping you "waitstation!" bashers some logic by using one of the most prominent developers that takes their time to develop games.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

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.

subrosian

Starcraft 2 is guaranteed AAA. There's no question about it. You can ask everyone on this board and they're going to guarantee it as well because its Blizzard with its clean track record and development philosophy.

Wow, I'm not even going to argue that anymore. If you think the PS3 devkit exists when there's no PS3, good luck eating the unbaked pie.

Waiting is never a good thing...................................................... well I guess you hate Blizzard since they make you wait all year long, sometimes even cancel the game on you.

By that time Wii and 360 will be too far ahead. But hey, have a good wait. And there will be low production rushed games out like: Halo 3 Bioshock Mass Effect Alan Wake I also am suffering though weak games like: Rainbow 6 Vegas GRAW GRAW 2 GeOW Yes I see your point........not (as Borat would say)d3thm0nkey

GRAW aside, all of those had recieved 1-2 years of development when the console released. Thanks for helping my argument. PS3 will need that much time to do the same.

Wow, thanks.

zelda TP is an example of why 'waiting' sometimes isn't a good thing .. IMOakif22

That's Nintendo's fault. Their greedy tactics though keeping it for the Wii and tacking on crappy controls will help sell it rather than releasing the game a year earlier when it was ready.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

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.

NobuoMusicMaker

Again, not sure where you're going with this. Blizzard does great to keep the scaling specs to a minimum so everyone can play it.

I'm saying that "waiting" is a good thing for Blizzard, but not necessarily as good for anyone else, because waiting for a Blizzard game is not like waiting for a game from any other developer. When Blizzard delays a game, you can be certain that it's due to more stringent gameplay quality, whereas with other developers, it may simply just be because they're getting used to difficult hardware.

Waiting is always a good thing, because it always gives devs more time, but except for Blizzard, you shouldn't expect game delays to automatically result in good games.

You say Blizzard can make great games without pushing the graphics like Crysis yet you note Diablo 2 scored lower because of its graphics?NobuoMusicMaker

Diablo came out in 1996. Diablo 2 came out in 2000 and used Diablo's exact same engine. It got a 7 in graphics on GameSpot, which is its only sub-8 score. Regardless, the game still scored an 8.5, using a four year old 2D graphics engineat the turn of the century when 3D graphics were becoming widespread.

What they won't do is push it so it becomes unplayable for the majority like Supreme Commander. Blizzard pushes everything.NobuoMusicMaker

Polygon pushing is no longer something that developers worry about. It's now mostly about texturing and lighting. Graphics cards have always been able to handle more than enough polygons than developers have bothered to push, so saying that SC2 models use more polys than WoW models is meaningless.

Would Starcraft score as well as it did if it was using Warcraft 1's engine and terrible attack and movement animation with terrible voicing during briefings and low quality music? No, of course not.NobuoMusicMaker

That's a four and a half year difference you're talking about, buddy. MGS2 and MGS1 were only two years apart.

"Blizzard is a league on their own" is pretty much your excuse to keep bashing the PS3. Because everyone knows Blizzard games are worth waiting for, and so are the upcoming PS3 games.NobuoMusicMaker

It's no excuse, it's true. Every Blizzard game is basically a full generation or two behind the curve in terms of technology. You're right, if MGS2 had been put on the PS1, it would have still scored AAA. So? It's not on the PS1, that's the point. It's on the PS2. If MGS2 had been made on the PS2, but with late-PS1 graphics, would it still have scored AAA? Of course not.

But every Blizzard game, except for Diablo 2, has basically done just that, especially since PC graphics advance so much quicker than console graphics. Just compare WoW with Half-Life 2; HL2 is AT LEAST a generation and a half ahead of WoW in terms of graphics and visual complexity, yet WoW comes away with just one point lower in graphics AND a higher overall score. That's the equivalent of an Xbox game being scored almost equally with an Xbox 360 game in pure visuals.

Can Kojima release a game on the PS3 with the visual complexity of a PS2 game and still hope for a AAA score? Of course not. But Blizzard probably can. And they'll do it because they spend their time more on gameplay design refinement and less on technology. They wouldn't care about the PS3's peak power the way Kojima and most other devs do. Or rather, they wouldn't have to (I have no doubt that Blizzard will push everything they have if given the opportunity to reach an equally wide audience regardless.).

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

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.

Redmoonxl2

Chris Talyor. Chris Metzen is Blizzard's lore master and game artist (Even though Samwise is infinitely better as an artist).

Besides, Blizzard's "wait until it's done" philosophy is for themselves. Sony and how it's handling it's console cannot be compared to a single developer's philosophy, especially when waiting for various games to hit a console tends to yield varying results. It makes more sense to gauge the future release of a single game coming from a single developer than gauge multiple games from multiple developers as a whole.

Whoops. My bad on that. And no, Blizzard's wait philosophy isn't just for themselves. Any developer can take time to polish their game if the publishers allow it. Sony isn't a company to push devs around to release their games early. So if MGS4 delays release because Kojima wants time? Or Warhawk needs an extra month to rework some kinks? I don't mind. But I also expect a bunch of "WAITSTATION" losers to erupt from the troll spawning grounds.

Another prominent "wait" developer is Valve. HL2 did not disappoint and the source engine was perfecto.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

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

And PS3 developers aren't working on gameplay? Wow, you must have really bought into the sheep's logic and start thinking that PS3 is just a graphics machine.

did i say they weren't? :roll: ps3 games are taking long because of technology issues. it's not the gameplay issues that are making them get delayed. blizzard on the other hand doesn't delay their games because of technology. they delay because they want the gameplay to be as good as possible.

Again, you seem to know how to develop games. You don't. And you definitely don't know what's being developed. Let's take Warhawk for example. The game's engine was done quite some time ago but they're taking the time to work out the gameplay kinks. Guess you overlooked that one.

Whoops. My bad on that. And no, Blizzard's wait philosophy isn't just for themselves. Any developer can take time to polish their game if the publishers allow it. Sony isn't a company to push devs around to release their games early. So if MGS4 delays release because Kojima wants time? Or Warhawk needs an extra month to rework some kinks? I don't mind. But I also expect a bunch of "WAITSTATION" losers to erupt from the troll spawning grounds.

Another prominent "wait" developer is Valve. HL2 did not disappoint and the source engine was perfecto.NobuoMusicMaker

Any developer can use the "wait till it's done" approach but do they all use that philosophy? No. Also, not every developer has Blizzard's talent to put out quality after quality. Not every developer has the luxery to develop a single game for nearly 6 years. You really need to be insanely proven as a developer to get that type of budget while the vast majority of developers (PC, consoles and handhelds) are stuck with a certain amount meant to last for a set number of months/years/whatever.

As for Valve, the reason that game was delayed was mostly due to the code being stolen left and right.

Again, you seem to know how to develop games. You don't. And you definitely don't know what's being developed. Let's take Warhawk for example. The game's engine was done quite some time ago but they're taking the time to work out the gameplay kinks. Guess you overlooked that one.

NobuoMusicMaker

Warhawk isn't being delayed because it's being perfected. The developers did a complete 180 with the gameplay design, turning it from a dogfighting game to a Battlefield clone. As a result, they basically had to start over from square one. When that happens, you basically have to spend a crapload of time to make sense of that drastic a change, hiring and rehiring people fit for that type of project.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

Again, you seem to know how to develop games. You don't. And you definitely don't know what's being developed. Let's take Warhawk for example. The game's engine was done quite some time ago but they're taking the time to work out the gameplay kinks. Guess you overlooked that one.

Redmoonxl2

Warhawk isn't being delayed because it's being perfected. The developers did a complete 180 with the gameplay design, turning it from a dogfighting game to a Battlefield clone. As a result, they basically had to start over from square one. When that happens, you basically have to spend a crapload of time to make sense of that drastic a change, hiring and rehiring people fit for that type of project.

And as a result, the devs are probably under even more of a time pressure than they were before.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

Again, you seem to know how to develop games. You don't. And you definitely don't know what's being developed. Let's take Warhawk for example. The game's engine was done quite some time ago but they're taking the time to work out the gameplay kinks. Guess you overlooked that one.

mjarantilla

Warhawk isn't being delayed because it's being perfected. The developers did a complete 180 with the gameplay design, turning it from a dogfighting game to a Battlefield clone. As a result, they basically had to start over from square one. When that happens, you basically have to spend a crapload of time to make sense of that drastic a change, hiring and rehiring people fit for that type of project.

And as a result, the devs are probably under even more of a time pressure than they were before.

They're definitely cracking the whip on their collective asses, that's for sure.

Any developer can use the "wait till it's done" approach but do they all use that philosophy? No. Also, not every developer has Blizzard's talent to put out quality after quality. Not every developer has the luxery to develop a single game for nearly 6 years. You really need to be insanely proven as a developer to get that type of budget while the vast majority of developers (PC, consoles and handhelds) are stuck with a certain amount meant to last for a set number of months/years/whatever.

As for Valve, the reason that game was delayed was mostly due to the code being stolen left and right.

Redmoonxl2

Well, take some examples from PS3. Kojima sure gets to do what he wants and can have no deadline if he needs it. Guerilla is taking a lot of development time and are probably recieving a lot of monetary support from Sony. Definitely, not all games are going to be like this but, as a whole, all PS3 games are worth waiting for. PS2 was never appealing because it had a few good games but rather that it had a plethora of decent titles backed by a lot of good games. SW only cares about the AAA titles and bash the PS3 because they lack the understanding that it takes time to make these games.

I never believed Valve purposely held back the game because of that. There's no reason not to launch an open-source game because someone took some bits of it.

Warhawk isn't being delayed because it's being perfected. The developers did a complete 180 with the gameplay design, turning it from a dogfighting game to a Battlefield clone. As a result, they basically had to start over from square one. When that happens, you basically have to spend a crapload of time to make sense of that drastic a change, hiring and rehiring people fit for that type of project.

Redmoonxl2

I don't know about the rehiring people part. But if redoing the game isn't a perfecting process, then I'm not sure why they are taking this long. They already shown the "Battlefield" part of the game a while ago.

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

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.

NobuoMusicMaker

And PS3 developers aren't working on gameplay? Wow, you must have really bought into the sheep's logic and start thinking that PS3 is just a graphics machine.

did i say they weren't? :roll: ps3 games are taking long because of technology issues. it's not the gameplay issues that are making them get delayed. blizzard on the other hand doesn't delay their games because of technology. they delay because they want the gameplay to be as good as possible.

Again, you seem to know how to develop games. You don't. And you definitely don't know what's being developed. Let's take Warhawk for example. The game's engine was done quite some time ago but they're taking the time to work out the gameplay kinks. Guess you overlooked that one.

it's not like we at system wars have never seen links to articles about how hard the ps3 is to program for. are the developers in those articles just bsing us? I don't know the status of every game but for warhawk they changed it to a downloadable. they changed what the whole game was to be. the engine might be done but they were delayed for more than working out kinks.

it's not like we at system wars have never seen links to articles about how hard the ps3 is to program for. are the developers in those articles just bsing us? I don't know the status of every game but for warhawk they changed it to a downloadable. they changed what the whole game was to be. the engine might be done but they were delayed for more than working out kinks.

Ontain

I've seen a lot of articles that says it's hard to develop for but there's so much potential in the PS3. I'm not sure if you missed the potential part. And the cell isn't only enhancing graphics like your fellow sheep would say. Cell has the potential to enhance the whole gameplay experience.

And I'm not sure when you heard that Warhawk was going to be a boxed release. SW may have said it, but the developers sure didn't.

Well, take some examples from PS3. Kojima sure gets to do what he wants and can have no deadline if he needs it. Guerilla is taking a lot of development time and are probably recieving a lot of monetary support from Sony. Definitely, not all games are going to be like this but, as a whole, all PS3 games are worth waiting for. PS2 was never appealing because it had a few good games but rather that it had a plethora of decent titles backed by a lot of good games. SW only cares about the AAA titles and bash the PS3 because they lack the understanding that it takes time to make these games.

I never believed Valve purposely held back the game because of that. There's no reason not to launch an open-source game because someone took some bits of it.NobuoMusicMaker

Two examples doesn't qualify as a whole. We don't know the PS3's future success rate gamewise because *gasp* each game has a different probablity of being successful. We don't know how will Guerilla's Killzone 2 will be because Killzone One was widely viewed as crap. Kojima hasn't had a 100% success rate, either, especially with the first ZoE and Boktai.

You're basically going around thinking that every PS3 game, high profile or not, is going to be worth waiting for like Blizzard games. If you seriously believe that, you need to come back to the real world. The PS3 hasn't been proven as a console with a long string of quality titles yet. Blizzard, on the flipside, has proven themselves as a developer capable of releasing strings of quality games, unlike PS3 developers as a whole. That's where your comparison falls flat.

As for Half Life 2, you really need to read this among other articles and keep yourself informed. The game was supposed to be released in 2003 but the theft of the code pushed it back a year.

I don't know about the rehiring people part. But if redoing the game isn't a perfecting process, then I'm not sure why they are taking this long. They already shown the "Battlefield" part of the game a while ago.

NobuoMusicMaker

"Redoing" requires new maps to be made, new art, taking/adding new gameplay elements, tons of programming, balancing, etc. Do you actually think they'd be set and ready so swiftly?

This is not a matter of changing a piece of paper into a paper plane. This is the equivalent of changing a novel into another novel. The "Battlefield" part of the game being shown doesn't mean the game was close enough to be retail friendly.

Well, take some examples from PS3. Kojima sure gets to do what he wants and can have no deadline if he needs it.NobuoMusicMaker

You're naive if you think that's true.

Guerilla is taking a lot of development time and are probably recieving a lot of monetary support from Sony.NobuoMusicMaker

They have to be: Sony is their publisher. But that doesn't mean they're receiving "a lot of monetary support." Killzone 2 probably has a similar kind of budget as can be expected from a PS3/360 game, but Sony knows that KZ1 wasn't well-received, and that the "Halo-killer hype" was what really moved the original KZ sales.

Definitely, not all games are going to be like this but, as a whole, all PS3 games are worth waiting for. PS2 was never appealing because it had a few good games but rather that it had a plethora of decent titles backed by a lot of good games.NobuoMusicMaker

Exactly. The problem is that the PS3 appears to be relying on a few key titles.

SW only cares about the AAA titles and bash the PS3 because they lack the understanding that it takes time to make these games.NobuoMusicMaker

I can assure you, some of us are more aware of the time constraint in game development. More than that, some of us are also aware of the cost constraint, which you seem to be ignorant of.

I never believed Valve purposely held back the game because of that. There's no reason not to launch an open-source game because someone took some bits of it.NobuoMusicMaker

PS3 is hardware. Blizzard puts out software. And relatively, Blizzard puts out more quality stuff than the PS3 currently does.solidsnakeEx3

[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 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.

The end of the thread right on that xD

I've seen a lot of articles that says it's hard to develop for but there's so much potential in the PS3. I'm not sure if you missed the potential part. And the cell isn't only enhancing graphics like your fellow sheep would say. Cell has the potential to enhance the whole gameplay experience.

And I'm not sure when you heard that Warhawk was going to be a boxed release. SW may have said it, but the developers sure didn't.

NobuoMusicMaker

I think you've made some very valid points and people ae jumping on the bashing the PS3. But you can't complain about the use of the terms "Potentialstation" or "waitstation" when you yourself make such use of it by saying it has such potential and to wait. I will say I agree with Kojima, better do do a game right than release a buggy or incomplete game.

On warhawk, it was definately changed to a downable.

EDITED cos i'm in work

Starcraft 2 is guaranteed AAA. There's no question about it. You can ask everyone on this board and they're going to guarantee it as well because its Blizzard with its clean track record and development philosophy.

Wow, I'm not even going to argue that anymore. If you think the PS3 devkit exists when there's no PS3, good luck eating the unbaked pie.

Waiting is never a good thing...................................................... well I guess you hate Blizzard since they make you wait all year long, sometimes even cancel the game on you.

NobuoMusicMaker

Ah, at long last, we reach the root of why you are unable to accept that being forced to wait *years* for your platform to have decent games is a bad thing.

First, you *still* completely fail to seperate a *platform* from a single game. PC gamers are getting dozens of AAA games while they "wait" for Starcraft 2 - they're not, in essence, *waiting* to get a great game to play. PS3 owners, on the other hand, are waiting for their system to have a library - right now it has been in a drought since launch, and it doesn't look to be changing any time soon.

And secondly, you seem completely unable to accept that nothing is guaranteed. Starcraft IS NOT a guaranteed AAA - no game is - whether or not the developer has a "clean" track record. Peter Molyneux is a great developer, that didn't stop Fable from being a complete letdown. Sega made several great console Sonicsthat didn't stop Sonic the Hedgehog from completely going down the tubes after Sonic & Knuckles.

If you cannot recognize that game developers *can* fail, and that the wait doesn't always contribute to a better game (or even a game at all) then you are right, there is no point to our conversation - you literally will not accept that failure is a possibility for Sony. And yes, I do dislike Blizzard for making me wait - the Starcraft Ghost delays, and quiet cancellation on the Gamecube were incredibly frustrating. In their delaying they turned Ghost into the wrong sort of game (assault over stealth) and eventually wound up scraping the project when they realized GCN sales would be too low.

Silicon Knights delays on Eternal Darkness 2 meant it never came out at all on the GCN, and delay on Too Human raise serious questions about if the trilogy will be able to complete in the 360's lifetime. Delays - and waiting - are not always good. Let's not even get into Twilight Princess - a game that was done two years earlier than its release - and simply *delayed* to launch with Nintendo's newest platform.

Blizzard actually has failed a few times. They just choose to spare their fanbase their failure rather than try to make money from it.RahnAetas

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]Blizzard actually has failed a few times. They just choose to spare their fanbase their failure rather than try to make money from it.Vandalvideo

Hell, I didn't even know that and I knew about their involvement in the horror that was Justice League Task Force.

[QUOTE="akif22"]zelda TP is an example of why 'waiting' sometimes isn't a good thing .. IMONobuoMusicMaker

That's Nintendo's fault. Their greedy tactics though keeping it for the Wii and tacking on crappy controls will help sell it rather than releasing the game a year earlier when it was ready.

YEAH! Greedy bastards! Like those guys at Microsoft! Sitting on the Halo franchise! Or PS3 keeping God of War to themselves! Greedy tacticians abound!

Nobuo... you have always kept your posts consistently braindead, so I try to keep my distance while you maintain the status quo of retardism.Why do you have to surpass yourself? You're going out on a limb to attack capitalism and good marketing now to support your argument?

It IS okay to be wrong. Sometimes, it's preferable to flailing around defending a dead point. Like this time.

Greedy tactics... wow. How dare they make money!Score one for you, pal. Now please... continue explaining how more time always equals a better product, if and only if it's a Sony product, with Blizzard's production philosophies and practices as the supporting basis of comparisonfor your argument.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="RahnAetas"]Blizzard actually has failed a few times. They just choose to spare their fanbase their failure rather than try to make money from it.Redmoonxl2

Hell, I didn't even know that and I knew about their involvement in the horror that was Justice League Task Force.

LOL, Wikipedia doesn't even list the Diablo expansion in Blizzard's page. Was it even offered with the Diablo Battlechest?

EDIT: Oh, Hellfire. It wasn't a Blizzard production; it was developed by a third party.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="RahnAetas"]Blizzard actually has failed a few times. They just choose to spare their fanbase their failure rather than try to make money from it.mjarantilla

Hell, I didn't even know that and I knew about their involvement in the horror that was Justice League Task Force.

LOL, Wikipedia doesn't even list the Diablo expansion. Was it even offered with the Diablo Battlechest?

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

[QUOTE="akif22"]zelda TP is an example of why 'waiting' sometimes isn't a good thing .. IMOvalmonte

That's Nintendo's fault. Their greedy tactics though keeping it for the Wii and tacking on crappy controls will help sell it rather than releasing the game a year earlier when it was ready.

YEAH! Greedy bastards! Like those guys at Microsoft! Sitting on the Halo franchise! Or PS3 keeping God of War to themselves! Greedy tacticians abound!

Nobuo... you have always kept your posts consistently braindead, so I try to keep my distance while you maintain the status quo of retardism.Why do you have to surpass yourself? You're going out on a limb to attack capitalism and good marketing now to support your argument?

It IS okay to be wrong. Sometimes, it's preferable to flailing around defending a dead point. Like this time.

Greedy tactics... wow. How dare they make money!Score one for you, pal. Now please... continue explaining how more time always equals a better product, if and only if it's a Sony product, with Blizzard's production philosophies and practices as the supporting basis of comparisonfor your argument.

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

Well in some cases waiting isn't such a good thing. Take Diablo 3. All the devs left to form flagship studios and make hellgate london, the spiritual sequal to diablo 2 (like bioshock is to system shock). So waiting for Diablo 3 seems a bit pointless.osirisomeomi

Not true, especially since Bill Roper killed the game by setting up a tiered multiplayer system.

Besides, Diablo 3 (If it ever comes out) will be more forgiving hardware wise than Hellgate London.

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

Dencore

Symphony of the Night /your post

personetly i think that blizzard ( although theyr a great company ) dosenty even compare to sony.

lets not let the ps3 over shadow theyre sucsess in the ps2 and ps1 not too mention psp

although the pc is the greatest place for games. period

[QUOTE="Dencore"]

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

NobuoMusicMaker

Symphony of the Night /your post

One game =/= revival/sustainment of a genre.

[QUOTE="Dencore"]

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

NobuoMusicMaker

Symphony of the Night /your post

:| Wow one multiplay amazing.

You must have forgotten how SONY refused to have Mega-man on their consoles unless they got extra features. How they refused from countless small developers 2D games. How they hyped the industry that 2D was just flatout "inferior" to 3D.

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 a pc company, pc gamers are always waiting, the difference is, we dont complain about it as much, or at all really, i mean, how long has spore ben in dev? and i have yet to see any complaining threads, well, i saw 1 so far. PC gamers know that the longer the wait the higher the quality

consoles however, you never know, the game could be downgraded for various reasons, but PC games can only be upgraded (theres always new hardwere if they make it to good ^^)

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"][QUOTE="Dencore"]

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

mjarantilla

Symphony of the Night /your post

One game =/= revival/sustainment of a genre.

This was before his time. He doesn't know.

Also what's beter Planescape: Torment or Final Fantasy VI?

[QUOTE="Arsuz"]I remember a certain game called Pray. It was developed for over 10 years. It sure turned out great :roll:NobuoMusicMaker

~point above post~

I highly doubt they worked on the game for that long, but I think you meant Doom 3.

No, he meant Prey.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/prey/news.html?sid=2560279&mode=all

Announced April 1997, released July 2006.

As for the "over 10 years" part, he's right about that, too:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/065/065277p1.html

" But whatever the release date, it seems that Prey is earning the tag 'oft-delayed', as the first tech demo was shown to the media in December, 1995."

EDIT #2: For the record, DOOM 3 was only in development for ~4 years. Announced in 2000, released 2004.

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

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

Dencore

Symphony of the Night /your post

One game =/= revival/sustainment of a genre.

This was before his time. He doesn't know.

Also what's beter Planescape: Torment or Final Fantasy VI?

Planescape: Torment. FFVI's greatness is in story, but Torment has story AND gameplay. FFVI is bigger and longer, though, and has better music, while Torment has better art.

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

WTF he of all people should be talking. SONY literally killed 2D gaming as of giving devs a hard time if not won't let them at all make 2D games on the PSone.

mjarantilla

Symphony of the Night /your post

One game =/= revival/sustainment of a genre.

This was before his time. He doesn't know.

Also what's beter Planescape: Torment or Final Fantasy VI?

Planescape: Torment. FFVI's greatness is in story, but Torment has story AND gameplay. FFVI is bigger and longer, though, and has better music, while Torment has better art.

Little big planet? 3D 2D is the new 3D.