I don't know.. comparing north korea with all the stuff that Blizz gives you, seems 'a little bit' out of comparison. Like I said, those features that Blizz brought back - Stats, regions, etc were needed, demanding more from Blizz about mapmaking and arcade is also good.
I was correctong Fockewulf on some untrue things he said about esports.
What's wrong with the community? I don't know much the Arcade community, but the ladder players are overall MUCH more mature than I've seen for 7 years in War3.
My point about giving it a time is that - you guys see War3 as it is now and compare it to SC2 only in the third year. War3 was not so huge in resources and mapmaking back in 2004 (yeah it still had resources), it even started 2-3 years after the expansion (2005-2007 when it really started growing in resources, Dota and stuff). Also SC2's stuff harder to make because with more options comes more difficulty, same for 3D models that are much harder.
If the more options and more difficult to make is the reason for less activity, well how do you get more options and features and make it easier? Plus Blizzard made all these features - Global play etc just recently. Ofc their mistake scared lots of the people off the game but now with all these features having been brough back, the game has yet to be tested in activity and all.
@Wc3SRui: @Mozared: Many WC3 games were from sc1, and even in the
editor u seem many remnants of sc1 campaign editor. The advancement of
the editor allowed the advancement of game concepts and creation of more
advance games that were not possible before. but sc1 was the first to do
battle for middle earth games and DOTA(AEON). (...)
I believe so, but me and Mozared are centered on the gameplay here. I'm well aware that most concepts, such as AoS, derive from others in SC, but no doubt WC3 allowed for huge improvements and, equally important, a more fitting environment. Someone once said: the units in the LotR maps were aliens for god's sake! =P
(...) Why say "imporvements" in quotes? So according to you they haven't made
any graphic improvements from WoW? yay cartoony graphics? They made
perfect balance between not too high technical specs and awesome
graphics - fact.
(...)
Some people believe that's not a positive aspect of the graphics. Quoting shamanyouranus, «Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists». See "StarCraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing". The specific post I quoted is #9.
(...)Are you telling me that there aren't many people watching WCS,
Dreamhack, IEM, MLG, many others? (...)
«Many» is relative, but I can say I watched DreamHack on July (about a week ago) and there were over 60 thousand people watching close to the finals. Did someone say they lacked ads? I don't remember how many different ads they had, but DreamHack was annoying, seriously, they were on commercial break over 50% of the time. Had the finals not been so close when I ran out of patience, I swear I'd have turned off my browser.
@FockeWulf
(...) don't take yourself so seriously, MANY have contribution to get some
features back, you are saying it as if it wasn't you, Blizzard wouldn't
listen, Blizzard should only listen to you...
(...)
Nah, just looks like it amidst the indignation and frustration (don't take that as a provocation). He's saying he did everything within his reach to no avail. While commendable, it didn't bear fruit, but he has the moral ground to say «at least I tried». As someone who has recently had exams whose grades did not correspond to the expended effort, I am a partisan of his point of view and the indignation that comes with it. =P
My point about giving it a time is that - you guys see War3 as it is now and compare it to SC2 only in the third year. War3 was not so huge in resources and mapmaking back in 2004 (yeah it still had resources), it even started 2-3 years after the expansion (2005-2007 when it really started growing in resources, Dota and stuff).
This isn't completely true. I'm comparing the SC2 mapping scene to what I know about the War3 mapping scene, which was already larger even before TFT was released. I don't know when it was at its largest, but WarCraft 3 had a bigger mapping scene than SC2 ever had right from the get-go in 2002. During all the years I played (2002, through 2005), it was never smaller or even close to the same size. You can't use "yeah the WarCraft 3 mapping scene was small in its first 3 years as well and only grew when the game was 4 or 5 years, so lets wait until StarCraft 2 is that age too" as an argument.
Some people believe that's not a positive aspect of the graphics. Quoting shamanyouranus, «Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists». See "StarCraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing". The specific post I quoted is #9.
I disagree on processor, and I am saying it when my graphics were failing as I couldn't start the game for 3 months - Feb, March, April unil I just went for a new notebook to run the game at ultra.
" The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats."
So how are the graphics older tech? They are not scanned from reality (like some attempts to do so I've seen), cartoony - aha the key word for why I disagree they are processor intensive, or is he trying to say graphics intensive? Either way, they are not cartoony but yeah they look like toys than real tanks or soldiers (I think it's the design, the texture maps make them realistic enough) - see War3, WoW for cartoony but their are not cinematic either. So let's make the graphics less cartoony at the same time not processor demanding - increase shaders make it a movie and less demanding, how does this happen??? :)))))
I've seen Dota 2, LoL cinemtics, so examples - give me examples of how this is done already in other games and is not in SC2. Am I missing some very high tech combo of low technical specs, better graphics and more realism done in some newer games? To tell ya, even Empire Earth 1, that I partially used in War3 and SC2 looks more realistic to me with the smaller units - tanks and such like actual units than SC2 - even with their poorer quality textures. It has to do with design, they look like toys, but I would not say 'cartoony'.
And if you tell me that the cinematics are cartoony - like look at the HotS intro.. what else do you expect that other companies already do? To me this is pointless whining about graphics but I agree the units look like toys, though again, I don't know what they should look like...
And for being more complex (the quote from shamanyouranus) - how do you make a more compelx game, higher poly models, using multiple texture maps and being as easy as war3 - then complain why so hard? :))) Again pointless whining about graphics and models - like I said, I would love things to be as easy as war3 but harder game, more complex graphics, models, - ADAPT, how would one have more features and remain as easy to make as war3?? I don't get this!
-
Dreamhack - I do not even watch it anymore, I am talking about WCS, WCS Season 1 did bring a hell lot of people watching the games of Innovation and MVP, Season 2 too probably even more interesting when the champion is down after this hhurr hurr destroy Terran Mech once again (Hellbats, Tanks, Thors) with yet another nerf of Hellbat.
It comes from everything being simpler to make - from models to maps and the editor, you think I wouldn't love to have a Magos tool to do the effects and everything for me and not Art Tools, then Actors and tons of data? I don't see a way Blizz could have done this as simple with more complex game, one has to simply move on. I am still curious to know HOW this would have happened. But yeah I dont deny that SC2 has less of everything than war3 and will probably never reach the success of war3 and BW partially to being pain to make but it's still a very good replacement and not a reason for me to stay at War3... just cause it's harder.
Oh and, as you can see Blizz still recover from their mistakes, adding more and more features, from BNet featurdes to editor's I think giving it a few more years is definitely in place - problem is there is a delay in all these being served, they could have been added in the beginning.
Omfg why compare War3 High quality or medium with Low Graphics, Low Textures SC2?? SC2 requirements also come from the physics, the meshes that are higher poly, many other factors. Not to say the shaders, lights particles, lighting these are what overload the graphics and thus require more PC resources.
When you say 'it's cartoony' you really must be referring to Low settings. I don't know, do I need to show you terrain to see how 'cartoony' it looks cause if all you see is Low settings, then yes it's actually more like SC1 than war3 meaning even pooorer.
Also I am still waiting to get an example of a game where there is some cutting edge graphics being developed with let's say the specs of SC2 since according to you graphics are the same and yet the requirements are much higher - really how does this happen
Or is the whole whining 'I can barely play Low on my wooden syste3m' well then work and buy a new one.
Then you are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing even though you know you are wrong and make a ridicluous comparison so as to serve your point. Great thinking! Seriously whoever complains about graphics being bad is ridiculous, unless he wants to tell me there are some brand new technology developed and used that makes the games look like a movie, then I will agree. I just browsed to see am I missing some movie graphics in latest RTS games that are also 3D, looks like I didn't find any.
I can understand there are problems in the Editor, in the Arcade but when ppl start complaining about non-existent problems such as graphics, that only some as low as Reddit-ers would complain about, it looks like typical T_T and should not be taken seriously.
This is starcraft 1, it is not even starcraft 2, this is a cinematic, watch this for example:
Yes damn it, it's not like Avatar, it is still a game, fu Blizzard why you no make it like Avatar, I wanted to see 100% movie! Bad graphics, sucks Booo Blizzard
And you sir are a retard, I wanted to avoid saying it but you gave me no choice after a second pointless comparison you made... Reddit would fit you perfectly. Done with this pointless argue.
Quote:
trolling on Reddit
You are sarcastic and yet you have no idea how correct you are, I think that's what you are doing here. Another reason to ignore what you say.
I am a retard, and I am a QQing whinging complainer who spends most of his time trolling on Reddit, you are correct. You're on a streak sir, anything else correct you'd like to say?
Quote:
You are sarcastic and yet you have no idea how correct you are, I think that's what you are doing here. Another reason to ignore what you say.
If I'm a troll, then why are you still responding? Does 'troll' even mean anything these days?
Then you are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing even though you know you are wrong and make a ridicluous comparison so as to serve your point. Great thinking! Seriously whoever complains about graphics being bad is ridiculous, unless he wants to tell me there are some brand new technology developed and used that makes the games look like a movie, then I will agree. I just browsed to see am I missing some movie graphics in latest RTS games that are also 3D, looks like I didn't find any.
I can understand there are problems in the Editor, in the Arcade but when ppl start complaining about non-existent problems such as graphics, that only some as low as Reddit-ers would complain about, it looks like typical T_T and should not be taken seriously.
Careful with statements like that, was viewing the EQ Next demos recently. And it looks very much like a movie. A disney animated Lion King movie!
Seriously though, what is all this about, I think FenixKissKerrigan, or FKKhead, has already proven to everyone what he is. He even admits to it on other sites. Why you gotta take a FKKhead like that so seriously?
Now as far as I can glean from reading around it seems like MLG just dropped SC2 from one of their tournament cicuits not the whole thing. Still what MLG is saying is that they no longer find StarCraft 2 profitable enough to keep them in every event.
Is this the end of StarCraft 2? Not by a long shot. But the current slope of the hill is negative and it's sure got a few of the MVP's worried.
Now as far as I can glean from reading around it seems like MLG just
dropped SC2 from one of their tournament cicuits not the whole thing.
Still what MLG is saying is that they no longer find StarCraft 2
profitable enough to keep them in every event.
Is this the end of StarCraft 2? Not by a long shot. But the current
slope of the hill is negative and it's sure got a few of the MVP's
worried.
Thank god for you Fockewulf.
I think this sums up StarCraft II...
3:35
"Are you truly so blinded by your vaunted StarCraft II, that you cannot see the fall of StarCraft II ahead of you? Blizzard believes that StarCraft II isn't dying, but all they have succeeded in doing, is making League of Legends more popular."
Yes damn it, it's not like Avatar, it is still a game, fu Blizzard why you no make it like Avatar, I wanted to see 100% movie! Bad graphics, sucks Booo Blizzard
Seriously, I can understand complaining about the Arcade and some things in the Editor, I also think the Editor could use some imporvements and even simplifications, but complaining about the graphics is pure bullshit and since there are such who complain about everything, some mega big QQers, then yes that was one of them. Go to terrain forum see how 'Lion King' some look like cause I can honestly say some Kaldir and Zerus terrains looked to me like real photos...
I posted some time ago - I do not think SC2 will ever reach the fame of SCBW and War3.
I do not think that one person posting a thread even if he is MVP member of the forums matters but if you saw my comments at gosugamers, you would see I share some of these thoughts:
Quote:
So Blizzard killed Terran mech once again, previous times they did it:
- Hellion preigniters upgrade nerf during WoL, removal of Warhound during beta, now nerfing Hellbats after being nerfed also with cargo size in medivacs. And they want diverse strategies? Lawl, you know what I really hate about David Kim's sucking methods of nerf? That they kill quite dynamic TvT games that were with Warhounds or Hellbats or Hellions with Preigniters... If they continue in this direction and will go for Widow Mines, Medivac Afterburners nerf, what will be left? The same stale TvT games...
and I even posted previously the stats that games like Dota 2 and LoL obviously made things better - bnet, player base, so I know Blizzard didn't do it well - I also mentioned that BLIZZ DID A MISTAKE WITH SO LATE FEATURES and whoever decided to not have those - should have been FIRED from their job.
However, MLG is not the cherry of esports as of the past 6 months - Dreamhack, ASUS, WCS, these are.
Also if you read the very same thread you posted as opposed to QQing about graphics or other NON-EXISTENT problems somne of you should not even mention - many people said the game itself is fine, it's the policies of Blizzard that cause the faults..
You see my point to all? Complain about real issues not bullshitting with 'QQ Lion King graphics, QQ bad sounds'. Dota 2 is movie graphics??
I don't know how this started about how StarCraft 2's graphical effects were ruined by the entire game being child-proofed.
As for E-Sports... Well it's got the community's faith shaken and it will be seen by the business world as a warning. It may never materialize. But the seed of doubt has set in on a large amount of people who used to be confident that all was well (that is to say, diminished zealousness in brain-washed fan boys).
What we seem to agree upon now is that Blizzard has and is suffering from serious mismanagement.
One thing I've learned over time is that the blame doesn't stop with Dustin Browder.
Although he controls the StarCraft 2 team. He has no control over the Battle.net team. I think its fair to say that over - over - half of the failures with the whole StarCraft 2 experience were caused by the Battle.net team and not by Dustin Browder.
The design concept for the arcade seems not to have come with the StarCraft 2 team. Did it come from the Battle.net team?
Personally after the bull shit I've gone through in the belief Blizzard will get better (that is, my fault for being an idiot thinking that things would get better, Blizzard for... Well any map maker that has tried to push a map up that damned popularity list has a long list on this aspect) I'm more inclined to believe an article complete with sources than an Activision-Blizzard employee working for a company that has lied to its customers more than a few times that I've seen myself.
But if the article is accurate (and unless someone can provide sufficient counter evidence it likely is) then the implications are clear. Battle.net 2.0, in its current form (I also know its been in the works before the merger. Now much I don't know) seems to closely correlate to Activision's business model.
In short: Blizzard is becoming nothing more than a development studio for Activision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@FenixKissKerrigan: Go
I don't know.. comparing north korea with all the stuff that Blizz gives you, seems 'a little bit' out of comparison. Like I said, those features that Blizz brought back - Stats, regions, etc were needed, demanding more from Blizz about mapmaking and arcade is also good.
I was correctong Fockewulf on some untrue things he said about esports.
@Charysmatic: Go
What's wrong with the community? I don't know much the Arcade community, but the ladder players are overall MUCH more mature than I've seen for 7 years in War3.
My point about giving it a time is that - you guys see War3 as it is now and compare it to SC2 only in the third year. War3 was not so huge in resources and mapmaking back in 2004 (yeah it still had resources), it even started 2-3 years after the expansion (2005-2007 when it really started growing in resources, Dota and stuff). Also SC2's stuff harder to make because with more options comes more difficulty, same for 3D models that are much harder.
If the more options and more difficult to make is the reason for less activity, well how do you get more options and features and make it easier? Plus Blizzard made all these features - Global play etc just recently. Ofc their mistake scared lots of the people off the game but now with all these features having been brough back, the game has yet to be tested in activity and all.
I believe so, but me and Mozared are centered on the gameplay here. I'm well aware that most concepts, such as AoS, derive from others in SC, but no doubt WC3 allowed for huge improvements and, equally important, a more fitting environment. Someone once said: the units in the LotR maps were aliens for god's sake! =P
Some people believe that's not a positive aspect of the graphics. Quoting shamanyouranus, «Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists». See "StarCraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing". The specific post I quoted is #9.
«Many» is relative, but I can say I watched DreamHack on July (about a week ago) and there were over 60 thousand people watching close to the finals. Did someone say they lacked ads? I don't remember how many different ads they had, but DreamHack was annoying, seriously, they were on commercial break over 50% of the time. Had the finals not been so close when I ran out of patience, I swear I'd have turned off my browser.
It's probably the new NWN MMO.
Nah, just looks like it amidst the indignation and frustration (don't take that as a provocation). He's saying he did everything within his reach to no avail. While commendable, it didn't bear fruit, but he has the moral ground to say «at least I tried». As someone who has recently had exams whose grades did not correspond to the expended effort, I am a partisan of his point of view and the indignation that comes with it. =P
This isn't completely true. I'm comparing the SC2 mapping scene to what I know about the War3 mapping scene, which was already larger even before TFT was released. I don't know when it was at its largest, but WarCraft 3 had a bigger mapping scene than SC2 ever had right from the get-go in 2002. During all the years I played (2002, through 2005), it was never smaller or even close to the same size. You can't use "yeah the WarCraft 3 mapping scene was small in its first 3 years as well and only grew when the game was 4 or 5 years, so lets wait until StarCraft 2 is that age too" as an argument.
I disagree on processor, and I am saying it when my graphics were failing as I couldn't start the game for 3 months - Feb, March, April unil I just went for a new notebook to run the game at ultra.
" The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats."
So how are the graphics older tech? They are not scanned from reality (like some attempts to do so I've seen), cartoony - aha the key word for why I disagree they are processor intensive, or is he trying to say graphics intensive? Either way, they are not cartoony but yeah they look like toys than real tanks or soldiers (I think it's the design, the texture maps make them realistic enough) - see War3, WoW for cartoony but their are not cinematic either. So let's make the graphics less cartoony at the same time not processor demanding - increase shaders make it a movie and less demanding, how does this happen??? :)))))
I've seen Dota 2, LoL cinemtics, so examples - give me examples of how this is done already in other games and is not in SC2. Am I missing some very high tech combo of low technical specs, better graphics and more realism done in some newer games? To tell ya, even Empire Earth 1, that I partially used in War3 and SC2 looks more realistic to me with the smaller units - tanks and such like actual units than SC2 - even with their poorer quality textures. It has to do with design, they look like toys, but I would not say 'cartoony'.
And if you tell me that the cinematics are cartoony - like look at the HotS intro.. what else do you expect that other companies already do? To me this is pointless whining about graphics but I agree the units look like toys, though again, I don't know what they should look like...
And for being more complex (the quote from shamanyouranus) - how do you make a more compelx game, higher poly models, using multiple texture maps and being as easy as war3 - then complain why so hard? :))) Again pointless whining about graphics and models - like I said, I would love things to be as easy as war3 but harder game, more complex graphics, models, - ADAPT, how would one have more features and remain as easy to make as war3?? I don't get this!
-Dreamhack - I do not even watch it anymore, I am talking about WCS, WCS Season 1 did bring a hell lot of people watching the games of Innovation and MVP, Season 2 too probably even more interesting when the champion is down after this hhurr hurr destroy Terran Mech once again (Hellbats, Tanks, Thors) with yet another nerf of Hellbat.
@Mozared: Go
It comes from everything being simpler to make - from models to maps and the editor, you think I wouldn't love to have a Magos tool to do the effects and everything for me and not Art Tools, then Actors and tons of data? I don't see a way Blizz could have done this as simple with more complex game, one has to simply move on. I am still curious to know HOW this would have happened. But yeah I dont deny that SC2 has less of everything than war3 and will probably never reach the success of war3 and BW partially to being pain to make but it's still a very good replacement and not a reason for me to stay at War3... just cause it's harder.
Oh and, as you can see Blizz still recover from their mistakes, adding more and more features, from BNet featurdes to editor's I think giving it a few more years is definitely in place - problem is there is a delay in all these being served, they could have been added in the beginning.
Eimtr, graphics have really evolved since WarCraft III, haven't they?
Now, let's take a look, shall we?
Some improvement!
You're not the brightest, really.
No, I'm not the brightest, Eiviyn. You are correct.
@FenixKissKerrigan: Go
Omfg why compare War3 High quality or medium with Low Graphics, Low Textures SC2?? SC2 requirements also come from the physics, the meshes that are higher poly, many other factors. Not to say the shaders, lights particles, lighting these are what overload the graphics and thus require more PC resources.
When you say 'it's cartoony' you really must be referring to Low settings. I don't know, do I need to show you terrain to see how 'cartoony' it looks cause if all you see is Low settings, then yes it's actually more like SC1 than war3 meaning even pooorer.
Also I am still waiting to get an example of a game where there is some cutting edge graphics being developed with let's say the specs of SC2 since according to you graphics are the same and yet the requirements are much higher - really how does this happen
Or is the whole whining 'I can barely play Low on my wooden syste3m' well then work and buy a new one.
Oh yes, you are correct Eimtr, I'm a QQing whinging complainer, and my computer is made of wood. Would you like a picture?
@FenixKissKerrigan: Go
Then you are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing even though you know you are wrong and make a ridicluous comparison so as to serve your point. Great thinking! Seriously whoever complains about graphics being bad is ridiculous, unless he wants to tell me there are some brand new technology developed and used that makes the games look like a movie, then I will agree. I just browsed to see am I missing some movie graphics in latest RTS games that are also 3D, looks like I didn't find any.
I can understand there are problems in the Editor, in the Arcade but when ppl start complaining about non-existent problems such as graphics, that only some as low as Reddit-ers would complain about, it looks like typical T_T and should not be taken seriously.
And this... gives you power, over me?
Oh, and watch this, then you will realize StarCraft II is cartoony.
@FenixKissKerrigan: Go
This is starcraft 1, it is not even starcraft 2, this is a cinematic, watch this for example:
Yes damn it, it's not like Avatar, it is still a game, fu Blizzard why you no make it like Avatar, I wanted to see 100% movie! Bad graphics, sucks Booo Blizzard
And you sir are a retard, I wanted to avoid saying it but you gave me no choice after a second pointless comparison you made... Reddit would fit you perfectly. Done with this pointless argue.
You are sarcastic and yet you have no idea how correct you are, I think that's what you are doing here. Another reason to ignore what you say.
I am a retard, and I am a QQing whinging complainer who spends most of his time trolling on Reddit, you are correct. You're on a streak sir, anything else correct you'd like to say?
If I'm a troll, then why are you still responding? Does 'troll' even mean anything these days?
The two of you are giving me a headache.
Are there no rules on off topic posting in this forum?
Careful with statements like that, was viewing the EQ Next demos recently. And it looks very much like a movie. A disney animated Lion King movie!
Seriously though, what is all this about, I think FenixKissKerrigan, or FKKhead, has already proven to everyone what he is. He even admits to it on other sites. Why you gotta take a FKKhead like that so seriously?
You miss me?
Anyways on that little topic about StarCraft 2 Esports doing just fine?
This just in: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9628392767
Now as far as I can glean from reading around it seems like MLG just dropped SC2 from one of their tournament cicuits not the whole thing. Still what MLG is saying is that they no longer find StarCraft 2 profitable enough to keep them in every event.
Is this the end of StarCraft 2? Not by a long shot. But the current slope of the hill is negative and it's sure got a few of the MVP's worried.
Thank god for you Fockewulf.
I think this sums up StarCraft II...
3:35
"Are you truly so blinded by your vaunted StarCraft II, that you cannot see the fall of StarCraft II ahead of you? Blizzard believes that StarCraft II isn't dying, but all they have succeeded in doing, is making League of Legends more popular."
@Deadzergling: Go
Eh, I need to go over that again:
Seriously, I can understand complaining about the Arcade and some things in the Editor, I also think the Editor could use some imporvements and even simplifications, but complaining about the graphics is pure bullshit and since there are such who complain about everything, some mega big QQers, then yes that was one of them. Go to terrain forum see how 'Lion King' some look like cause I can honestly say some Kaldir and Zerus terrains looked to me like real photos...
@FockeWulf: Go
I posted some time ago - I do not think SC2 will ever reach the fame of SCBW and War3.
I do not think that one person posting a thread even if he is MVP member of the forums matters but if you saw my comments at gosugamers, you would see I share some of these thoughts:
and I even posted previously the stats that games like Dota 2 and LoL obviously made things better - bnet, player base, so I know Blizzard didn't do it well - I also mentioned that BLIZZ DID A MISTAKE WITH SO LATE FEATURES and whoever decided to not have those - should have been FIRED from their job.
However, MLG is not the cherry of esports as of the past 6 months - Dreamhack, ASUS, WCS, these are.
Also if you read the very same thread you posted as opposed to QQing about graphics or other NON-EXISTENT problems somne of you should not even mention - many people said the game itself is fine, it's the policies of Blizzard that cause the faults..
You see my point to all? Complain about real issues not bullshitting with 'QQ Lion King graphics, QQ bad sounds'. Dota 2 is movie graphics??
@Eimtr: Go
I don't know how this started about how StarCraft 2's graphical effects were ruined by the entire game being child-proofed.
As for E-Sports... Well it's got the community's faith shaken and it will be seen by the business world as a warning. It may never materialize. But the seed of doubt has set in on a large amount of people who used to be confident that all was well (that is to say, diminished zealousness in brain-washed fan boys).
What we seem to agree upon now is that Blizzard has and is suffering from serious mismanagement.
One thing I've learned over time is that the blame doesn't stop with Dustin Browder.
Although he controls the StarCraft 2 team. He has no control over the Battle.net team. I think its fair to say that over - over - half of the failures with the whole StarCraft 2 experience were caused by the Battle.net team and not by Dustin Browder.
The design concept for the arcade seems not to have come with the StarCraft 2 team. Did it come from the Battle.net team?
Its important to remember the biggest source of information we have. I've had a few Blizzard developers deny it and more than a few can boys go so far as to defend the man: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252
Personally after the bull shit I've gone through in the belief Blizzard will get better (that is, my fault for being an idiot thinking that things would get better, Blizzard for... Well any map maker that has tried to push a map up that damned popularity list has a long list on this aspect) I'm more inclined to believe an article complete with sources than an Activision-Blizzard employee working for a company that has lied to its customers more than a few times that I've seen myself.
But if the article is accurate (and unless someone can provide sufficient counter evidence it likely is) then the implications are clear. Battle.net 2.0, in its current form (I also know its been in the works before the merger. Now much I don't know) seems to closely correlate to Activision's business model.
In short: Blizzard is becoming nothing more than a development studio for Activision.