Re: Diablo 3 is official.

**Ferris Bueller** · 07-08-2008, 11:40 AM

You guys are focusing on entirely the wrong message of skud's post. He said the INFLUENCE they've had on the gaming industry cant be ignored. He said nothing about the quality or innovation that any of those games brought.

I havent really played CoH, so i cant comment about that, but the others i can. Civ4, while being a very popular game didnt really have much realistic impact. BF2, while it has proven to be a very popular and long-lasting title, spawning a plethora of quality spinoffs and modifications didnt really do anything for the fps portion of the gaming industry that counter-strike didnt do first.

WoW, on the other hand has had an undeniable influence. MMO's were smallish games that only the most hardcore of nerds played before WoW. Then it came along and popularized the genre. People no longer minded paying to play a game month by month. All of a sudden it was socially acceptable to be talking about your level 70 dwarf with the uber cool armor. People shouting things like "leeeeeroy jeeeenkins!" became pop culture references. Its spawned it's own culture and brought MMO's into the limelight. No MMO since has managed to hold a candle to it's popularity or influence. It really did revolutionize that part of the gaming industry.

**FrankManik** · 07-10-2008, 03:34 PM

I second that. I was talking about this with my buddy last night. Blizzard hasn't neccesarily been a great innovator, but they have taken a given example of what you can do with a game and given it a level of polish and playability that makes something amazing.

Still, not too excited. Unless they pull a total curveball or something. Which could happen.

**FrankManik** · 07-10-2008, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

The only one of those that I haven't played is CoH and, from watching gameplay footage, it's still just an RTS.

Basically, Civ4's major innovation is that each individual unit behaves individually, shooting, moving, taking cover, using specialized weaponry, flanking, being flanked, and so forth. As opposed to a traditional FPS, where each unit is essentially an icon for a number of HP and DPS, each unit in COH behaves more like the soldier or vehicle it is supposed to represent, reacting to terrain, taking advantage of cover, and so forth. It may sound like a minor change, but it allows for asymmetrical warfare in an RTS. That is, a smartly managed infantry squad can effectively engage a tank using ambush tactics, distractions, covering smoke, and sheer meanness. Compare to C&C, where a tank is always a tank, and will always defeat a given number of infantry. You really should try it, it is a major innovation to the genre that works very well.

**SmokingTarpan** · 07-10-2008, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by FrankManik

Basically, Civ4's major innovation is that each individual unit behaves individually, shooting, moving, taking cover, using specialized weaponry, flanking, being flanked, and so forth. As opposed to a traditional FPS, where each unit is essentially an icon for a number of HP and DPS, each unit in COH behaves more like the soldier or vehicle it is supposed to represent, reacting to terrain, taking advantage of cover, and so forth.

I think you're talking all about CoH here, but you mention Civ4 and FPS games all in the same context, so I'm a bit on the confused side.

The innovations you mention in CoH are definitely interesting and cool, but from watching the gameplay videos it all boils down to telling guy/group A to move/attack/defend point target X. Still the same old RTS basics. And also, from what I saw, the individual soldier AI that you mention is less than smart/real. I saw soldiers standing in the open in a line and shooting instead of taking cover behind the rock next to them, opposing forces shooting at each other basically face to face without people dying, etc. It seemed a worse RTS than usual. :P Graphics were very impressive, however.

I understand and agree with people making comments that changes in quality these days are what makes the games enjoyable. My argument is more for the people that say things like, "Diablo 3 is going to be just like Diablo 2. I want something new!" Well, when it boils down to it, nothing is new unless it creates an entirely unheard of genre of games. So of course two games in the same genre (especially with sequels) are going to be like each other at root. It's the flashy bits that will distinguish one from another, and I'm thinking D3 will have even better flashy bits than D2. But if you never liked that type of game to begin with, I doubt you'll like any version of it. :P

Thread Tools

Display