Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Werdna]

Hey, here's one reason to love Blizzard:

Selling a bazillion copies of their (IMO, fantastic) games are one reason the *PC* gaming industry is still alive and well.  You can shudder at their RTS's or WoW or their piles of $$$ all you want, but their success keeps gamers glued to keyboards instead of controllers, and that helps out the indy's like Toady. 

[MathijsBuster]

Anyway, I feel like the reference is less a reference and more a coincidence that happens to look like a reference. It's kinda fun, but it tastes like those people who make connection to 666 based on someone's name: basically ridiculous and mostly false.

I was doubtful too at first. But the fact that they've made references to Dwarf Fortress before in their games (multiple in WoW) makes me believe that this truly is another nod to DF.

[Rowanas]

I hope there are DF references in Diablo 3...

[Lawec]

I hope there are DF references in Diablo 3...

That would be incredibly awesome.

[Hyndis]

Torchlight sort of has a DF reference. A good chunk of the game is actually very dwarven, two whole tilesets!

Ancient dwarven underground fortress, full of magma, dubious architecture, and inhabited by goblins. When you go deeper you come across the main halls of the fortress, which are filled with insane dwarves, frequent traps on the floors or walls, with barrels of booze scattered around randomly and in large number. In the story the dwarves dug too deep, became corrupted and insane, and killed each other.



Its basically the aftermath of a goblin siege and subsequent tantrum spiral.

[Adultratedhydra]

To the people hating on SC 2 And other Activision/blizzard games.

Sometimes something is popular because its good, despite how many people say its bad (Read: Dwarf fortress)  .

[AnalogX]

To the people hating on SC 2 And other Activision/blizzard games.

Sometimes something is popular because its good, despite how many people say its bad (Read: Dwarf fortress)  .

But you would say that, wouldn't you. You seem to love Star Craft so much that had to reference it in your forum user name. Therefore I can determine that you'd say whatever you think would help the situation in Blizzard's favor.

This reference may be an actual Bay12/DF reference, it may not be, we may never know. But tell me this. Of all the millions of people who play it, who will actually pick up on the supposed reference?

Sometimes something is popular because its good, despite how many people say its bad (Read: Dwarf fortress)  .

If many people dislike something, by definition, doesn't that make it unpopular? By virtue of being good doesn't make something popular. Look at Beta tapes and MiniDiscs. They were good. But not popular. Look what happened to them. Star Craft 2 is popular because it is hyped up. Nothing more.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

You'll notice that a LOT of the most innovative games these days come (...) (from) big-time companies who are so successful that they can screw around, experiment, and still make a profit.

like what? spore?

[Shade-o]

The moral of the story is that opinions are subjective.

I think?

[nophilip]

You'll notice that a LOT of the most innovative games these days come (...) (from) big-time companies who are so successful that they can screw around, experiment, and still make a profit.

like what? spore?

Hahahahahaha Spore. Hyped as the future of innovation of user-created content in gaming. Too bad every type of gameplay was a glorified demo. And it was outdone in user-created content by many games since, most notably Little Big Planet.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

eh, it inovated a bit, i guess, will wright is an alright dude, but the guys tried so hard to keep it casual the game looked like something that came out of a cereal box. the problem with starcraft is probably the guys trying so hard to keep it old school, but with better graphics to force you to update your hardware. i'm sure it'll be better than spore, but there's absolutelly no risk taking in the big leagues agenda

[Shade-o]

When I finally played Spore, I found that the biggest problem was that the majority of the game was a galactic Four-X, without any of the supporting features. Build a huge empire by manually discovering, conquering, colonising, terraforming, and defending each and every planet, each more identical than the last. Your huge, all-powerful empire is sustained by a single, crappy spaceship which does all the colonising, exploring, defending, diplomacy, trading and conquering, opposed to your allies and enemies who have no problem sending out masses of ships to do all that. And of course your empire and allies have no self-preservation ability at all, meaning that every single chicken pox outbreak, pirate raid or stubbed toe is a civilisation-ending threat that you and only you can fix.

I 'finished' Spore, but only because I was unwilling to let it beat me. There was absolutely no joy in playing after the first minutes of the Space Stage. I regret the whole period.

[nophilip]

When I finally played Spore, I found that the biggest problem was that the majority of the game was a galactic Four-X, without any of the supporting features. Build a huge empire by manually discovering, conquering, colonising, terraforming, and defending each and every planet, each more identical than the last. Your huge, all-powerful empire is sustained by a single, crappy spaceship which does all the colonising, exploring, defending, diplomacy, trading and conquering, opposed to your allies and enemies who have no problem sending out masses of ships to do all that. And of course your empire and allies have no self-preservation ability at all, meaning that every single chicken pox outbreak, pirate raid or stubbed toe is a civilisation-ending threat that you and only you can fix.

I 'finished' Spore, but only because I was unwilling to let it beat me. There was absolutely no joy in playing after the first minutes of the Space Stage. I regret the whole period.

I had the exact same experience. I got to the space stage and I was like "finally something interesting. I can build my own kickass galactic empire!" The lack of delegation of duties ruined the whole thing though. My last bit of joy that I got from that game went as follows: As I built my empire, there was this one empire a semi-short distance away that just up and decided they HATED me. They tried to ruin me in everything I did. So I destroyed their homeworld. When everyone in the galaxy got pissed at me, I decided there was no more fun to be had.

[Shades]

If many people dislike something, by definition, doesn't that make it unpopular? By virtue of being good doesn't make something popular. Look at Beta tapes and MiniDiscs. They were good. But not popular. Look what happened to them. Star Craft 2 is popular because it is hyped up. Nothing more.

This would be true if it was pre-release. The people that I know who have played it have said it's very good, and having not played it myself there is no good reason to comment otherwise.

If you don't like that kind of game that is of course your choice but saying it's popular because it's hyped up is just being silly. Being good doesn't make something popular, although it helps to a great extend. Many people disliking something does make it unpopular but more often people are apathetic about things than actively disliking them.

[SolarShado]

The thing that irked me the most about spore's space stage was the CONSTANT "pirate attack" or "environmental disaster". You don't get to do[/] anything because of those interruptions. I never had a chance to get bored with monotonous teraforming/etc...

Best part of spore? Tie: City stage/Creature stage. Creature's the second longest (if you track down all the parts anyway) and I usually manages to stay fun the entire time. City's a nice, simple, frantic RTS. But it's a bit too short...

I never even found the whadda-ya-call-'em's...