Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Blizzard plans for the next 4 years, including a new MMO!


Video Games


A recent leak from Blizzard (via the Chinese office, which has resulted in sackings there) shows a production slate of their proposed releases over the next four years. Whilst the dates are not set in stone, they do reveal some of Blizzard's thoughts:

Q4 2011: Diablo 3
Q4 2011: StarCraft 2: Legacy of the Swam
Q2 2012: World of WarCraft: Expansion 4
Q1 2013: StarCraft 2: Heart of the Void
Q2 2013: Diablo 3: Expansion 1
Q4 2013: World of WarCraft: Expansion 5
Q4 2013: Titan
Q4 2014: Diablo 3: Expansion 2

Amongst the high optimism on display is the interesting title Titan, which fans immediately guessed was Blizzard's long-rumoured-to-be-in-development new MMO franchise. A Blizzard rep confirmed this, but would say no more about it. However, Blizzard had previously said that the new MMO was going to be a whole new IP (by the time it comes out, Blizzard's first original title in over 15 years), meaning this isn't the fan-suggested Worlds of StarCraft, but a whole new world.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...because the world needs more MMORPGs. I'm way more interested in the fact that Diablo 3 might get two expansions; each possibly including more classes.


Necromancer wrote:
...because the world needs more MMORPGs. I'm way more interested in the fact that Diablo 3 might get two expansions; each possibly including more classes.

The word is that it isn't an MMORPG, certainly nothing like WoW. Instead, the rumour is that it is more of an action-MMO, something more like the classic PLANETSIDE (itself rumoured to be getting a reboot/sequel in the next couple of years) or a persistent-world SF version of CoD's multiplayer (something Activision would be drooling over).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
The word is that it isn't an MMORPG, certainly nothing like WoW. Instead, the rumour is that it is more of an action-MMO, something more like the classic PLANETSIDE (itself rumoured to be getting a reboot/sequel in the next couple of years) or a persistent-world SF version of CoD's multiplayer (something Activision would be drooling over).

It's the "massive multiplayer" part that keeps people like me from buying it; no single player option, just sign up and pay monthly/yearly. No thanks. The premise sounds interesting, but I wish they would consider the people that don't want to play online; not just how much they can steal monthly from customers.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Yeah, they should put out games like Diablo and Starcraft. Wait, what...


Necromancer wrote:
It's the "massive multiplayer" part that keeps people like me from buying it; no single player option, just sign up and pay monthly/yearly. No thanks. The premise sounds interesting, but I wish they would consider the people that don't want to play online; not just how much they can steal monthly from customers.

I think technically if you pay for a subscription voluntarily which you can cancel at any time, that's not stealing. You can say maybe ripping off (if you don't think the content is worth the money), but 'stealing' isn't really the right word.

Besides, if you don't like MMOPRGs there's plenty of very good single-player ones around (or forthcoming, such as ELDER SCROLLS V and MASS EFFECT 3, just announced), and certainly no dearth of single-player action games.

I'm not a fan of subscription-based MMO games either, so I don't play them. Plenty of other titles around.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wolfthulhu wrote:
Yeah, they should put out games like Diablo and Starcraft. Wait, what...

Remember the Warcraft series (not the garbage MMO, but the RTS)? After three installments (plus expansions), they dropped the RTS line in favor for the MMORPG variant; since WoW has been successful, I worry that they'll drop Diablo's single player campaigns and turn the franchise into an MMO as well. I don't care about Starcraft.

Werthead wrote:

I think technically if you pay for a subscription voluntarily which you can cancel at any time, that's not stealing. You can say maybe ripping off (if you don't think the content is worth the money), but 'stealing' isn't really the right word.

Besides, if you don't like MMOPRGs there's plenty of very good single-player ones around (or forthcoming, such as ELDER SCROLLS V and MASS EFFECT 3, just announced), and certainly no dearth of single-player action games.

I'm not a fan of subscription-based MMO games either, so I don't play them. Plenty of other titles around.

I just don't like the trends developing; I'm seeing more and more MMOs instead a basic RPG with a single player campaign and multiplayer support.


Necromancer wrote:


Remember the Warcraft series (not the garbage MMO, but the RTS)? After three installments (plus expansions), they dropped the RTS line in favor for the MMORPG variant; since WoW has been successful, I worry that they'll drop Diablo's single player campaigns and turn the franchise into an MMO as well.

Because it is generally considered to be more fun interacting with people than not, and teamwork based PVE is a lot of fun.

Multiplayer is, and always has been, the growing trend when itcame to computer games.

Good single-player games still exist, and some are plain spectacular.

The Thief series was great, and T4 is due next year.

The C-RPG that fell over that I felt had huge promise was Vampire:Bloodlines, that thing was extremely under-rated.

Shadow Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Multiplayer is, and always has been, the growing trend when itcame to computer games.

Which is a bit sad, because the truly great iconic videogame experience are largely single player games.


Kthulhu wrote:
Which is a bit sad, because the truly great iconic videogame experience are largely single player games.

True, but then a good Single player game is like a small jewel on a vast sea of mediocrity. On the other hand, lasy and unimaginative developers can simply schlep together a decent FPS wrapper and let player interaction pick up the slack.

Far easier to make a 'fun' MMO than a 'fun' Single player game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shifty wrote:
Necromancer wrote:


Remember the Warcraft series (not the garbage MMO, but the RTS)? After three installments (plus expansions), they dropped the RTS line in favor for the MMORPG variant; since WoW has been successful, I worry that they'll drop Diablo's single player campaigns and turn the franchise into an MMO as well.

Because it is generally considered to be more fun interacting with people than not, and teamwork based PVE is a lot of fun.

Multiplayer is, and always has been, the growing trend when itcame to computer games.

Good single-player games still exist, and some are plain spectacular.

The Thief series was great, and T4 is due next year.

The C-RPG that fell over that I felt had huge promise was Vampire:Bloodlines, that thing was extremely under-rated.

I had no idea T4 was in production (knew about the possibility, but not that anyone was actively working on it). Next year feels brighter already.

Also, Troika's death was a sad, sad thing; at least Obsidian snatched up some of the crew, that was an amazing team.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Werthead wrote:

Whilst the dates are not set in stone, they do reveal some of Blizzard's thoughts:

Q4 2011: Diablo 3
Q2 2013: Diablo 3: Expansion 1
Q4 2014: Diablo 3: Expansion 2

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

So long........

Still, I'm really looking forward to this game. Been playing Diablo II again lately.


Necromancer wrote:


I just don't like the trends developing; I'm seeing more and more MMOs instead a basic RPG with a single player campaign and multiplayer support.

The problem usually was that the multiplayer support was just an afterthought.

The one game that got things right was Neverwinter Nights. Next best thing to actually playing D&D. They messed up the sequel.

Most of these games are but RTS with roleplaying elements, anyway.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Necromancer wrote:

It's the "massive multiplayer" part that keeps people like me from buying it; no single player option, just sign up and pay monthly/yearly. No thanks. The premise sounds interesting, but I wish they would consider the people that don't want to play online; not just how much they can steal monthly from customers.

They have you served. StarCraft and Diablo 3 can be done as single player offline.


Shifty wrote:
Necromancer wrote:


Remember the Warcraft series (not the garbage MMO, but the RTS)? After three installments (plus expansions), they dropped the RTS line in favor for the MMORPG variant; since WoW has been successful, I worry that they'll drop Diablo's single player campaigns and turn the franchise into an MMO as well.

Because it is generally considered to be more fun interacting with people than not, and teamwork based PVE is a lot of fun.

Multiplayer is, and always has been, the growing trend when itcame to computer games.

Good single-player games still exist, and some are plain spectacular.

The Thief series was great, and T4 is due next year.

The C-RPG that fell over that I felt had huge promise was Vampire:Bloodlines, that thing was extremely under-rated.

I have to chime in here. Bloodlines WOULD have been a good game...if it was ever actually finished. I bought my wife that game years ago when it first came out and was disgusted to discover I had purchased something that was only half-complete. She had the patience to download(fan made) patch after (fan made) patch, but I didn't. I was quickly disgusted with the game, it only encouraged my hatred of console gaming at that time.


Freehold DM wrote:
I was quickly disgusted with the game, it only encouraged my hatred of console gaming at that time.

I was with you up until this sentence. What does console gaming have to do with BLOODLINES' problems? Activision forced Troika to rush the game, engaged in corporate meddling (in fairness Troika were faffing around a fair bit as well), gave them only a couple of weeks to engage in bug-testing, only one further week to create a patch and then laid off most of the staff so that no further official patches could be released. Valve were also not as helpful over issues with the Source engine as they should have been, apparently paranoid over the late 2003 leak of the Source code onto the Internet. Activision also released the game on the same day as fricking HALF-LIFE 2 (a PC-only release at that time) with the result that BLOODLINES wasn't given the time of day by gamers or the critics who were too excited and blinded over Valve's new game.

So I can understand blaming Troika, Activision, even Valve at a bit more of a stretch, but console gaming? Why?

Isn't the Steam version of BLOODLINES pretty much updated and patched-up now anyway? I was thinking of picking it up.


Werthead wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I was quickly disgusted with the game, it only encouraged my hatred of console gaming at that time.

I was with you up until this sentence. What does console gaming have to do with BLOODLINES' problems? Activision forced Troika to rush the game, engaged in corporate meddling (in fairness Troika were faffing around a fair bit as well), gave them only a couple of weeks to engage in bug-testing, only one further week to create a patch and then laid off most of the staff so that no further official patches could be released. Valve were also not as helpful over issues with the Source engine as they should have been, apparently paranoid over the late 2003 leak of the Source code onto the Internet. Activision also released the game on the same day as fricking HALF-LIFE 2 (a PC-only release at that time) with the result that BLOODLINES wasn't given the time of day by gamers or the critics who were too excited and blinded over Valve's new game.

So I can understand blaming Troika, Activision, even Valve at a bit more of a stretch, but console gaming? Why?

Isn't the Steam version of BLOODLINES pretty much updated and patched-up now anyway? I was thinking of picking it up.

HA! Hilarious typo is hilarious.

I *MEANT* PC gaming. Don't drink and post, folks.

[EDIT]Did NOT know a lot of that. Interesting backstory, and I can see there are truly no winners here. Still pissed, primarily because I paid full price for it.


Fair enough :-)

Hell, it's £14.99 on Steam? For a six-year-old game. You can get ALPHA PROTOCOL and MASS EFFECT 2 for the same price and they're only a few months old. I might hold off on it then. Or check Amazon instead (nope, £60!).

Anyway, my understanding is that all you need is a copy of BLOODLINES and the latest community patch (v7.2, IIRC) and Bob's your uncle. That fixes just about everything save the problematic shift from a roleplaying-focused to combat-focused game in the rushed finale, which is a much deeper and more comprehensive issue. But the other 80% of the game is now supposed to be A-OK.


Werthead wrote:

Fair enough :-)

Hell, it's £14.99 on Steam? For a six-year-old game. You can get ALPHA PROTOCOL and MASS EFFECT 2 for the same price and they're only a few months old. I might hold off on it then. Or check Amazon instead (nope, £60!).

Anyway, my understanding is that all you need is a copy of BLOODLINES and the latest community patch (v7.2, IIRC) and Bob's your uncle. That fixes just about everything save the problematic shift from a roleplaying-focused to combat-focused game in the rushed finale, which is a much deeper and more comprehensive issue. But the other 80% of the game is now supposed to be A-OK.

I may have to check this out for the wife, if only to get her off the sims teat. Any issues with running it in the latest version of windows(vista, or whatever they're up to)?


I played through it on XP no worries, and played the whole game through a couple of times to see the multiple different endings.

The game plays very differently depending on which particular clan/bloodline you take, so it has some semblance of replayability.

I had a ball with this game, and only wish there was more of it.


Freehold DM wrote:


I was quickly disgusted with the game, it only encouraged my hatred of console gaming at that time.

To be fair to consoles, the game was just as riddled with errors in the PC version.

The fact that the guys who made the game went bankrupt right after they released it (or even before? I'm not quite sure) didn't make things better (it might be that they had to rush their release because they literally didn't have the resources left to complete the game - and even if not, the fact that those are fan patches is only because there was no one official there any more to make patches.

Anyway, I loved the game despite its errors, and I'm usually quite intolerant of such stuff.

For me, it was the game Deus Ex 2 should have been but failed to be.

Plus, I think there should be a law requiring everyone to play this game as a Malkavian. That was just godly. Having the newsreader on the radio talking about you (literally about you. It's something "Earlier tonight, there was a shoot-out between a biker gang and you!") Or the news anchor on TV telling you a joke is just golden.

And in one later fan-updates, where they introduced specialisations (you chose a clan, but then could go a special path), there was the Ninja for Malkavians. They're good in fighting unarmed and with melee weapons, but may never learn firearms skills, because firearms are anathema. And ducks. Ducks are anathema, too.

Just love it.

You're a bear. You're hungry. See this tasty salmon. It's like that Old Spice commercial, only that you can make the other guy believe the stuff.

Edit: After reading your post about this being about PC games, not Console games: Yeah, that makes sense now.

Anyway, it's not really a PC game thing per se, but mostly a "those guys did bad stuff" thing (see above). Sure, there are other games like this, but luckily, they're the minority.

I'd say that most decent PC games nowadays are released in a pretty solid condition.

And it's not like consoles are immune to this. After all, PS3 and XBox360(I think) have game updates now, too. Maybe not quite as much, since all PS3s are more or less the same, and the same goes for the other consoles. A lot less combinations of processors and graphics chips and cards and whatever to test, so you are less prone to errors. But still, it does happen.

And as for those consoles that don't have an update feature for games (which is pretty much just the Wii I think): If you screw up something, then it stays screwed up. One example that comes to mind is Super Paper Mario, where the game (and the console) freezes if you talk to a certain character (Luckily you can avoid that conversation altogether). There's no quick patch to get that fixed or anything (as far as I know).


Screw Diablo 3! We need ourselves a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game for the PS3 dammit! ^_^

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Video Games / Blizzard plans for the next 4 years, including a new MMO! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Video Games

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.