5 ms·

Something that seems to disappoint me about big game studios like Blizzard is the smallish number of games they've made. With a creative staff where probably 10

by xs 10y ago

Something that seems to disappoint me about big game studios like Blizzard is the smallish number of games they've made. With a creative staff where probably 100% of them are gamers, I'm sure the number of game ideas is just overflowing within. I wish Blizzard would try making more smaller games to see if it picks up any traction. I think of Blizzard let their game designers spend 20% of their time on their own project they'd find a ton of new revenue generating games. I'm hoping bonfire games has a hit game released to get started with then focus on smaller games after that so we can be entertained in numerous new ways.

jimminy 10y ago
You're assuming that they don't allow this kind of tinkering internally. But they actually due, Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone were both created as internal passion projects by staff, grew interest inside of the company, polished and released. Blizzard does focus on quality and feel, and is very open about their willingness to push dates or cancel projects if it doesn't meet their quality standard. Titan didn't work as an MMO, and a lot of that work was reused in Overwatch.
- jbpetersen 10y ago
  It would be really nice to see them spawn another brand that they can use for more easily publishing things that don't meet "Blizzard" standards.
  - rgreasons 10y ago
    They already have one! It's called Activision.
thearn4 10y ago
I've thought to myself before that an space sim MMO taking place in the Starcraft universe, if done right, would practically print money. But that's always an extremely easy thing for someone to think who is on the outside and not on the hook to develop it. I try to keep this in mind as the space sim genre is awakening again with E:D, Star Citizen, NMS, etc.
douche 10y ago
The bottleneck is art, from what I understand. It's not trivial to generate enough skinned, rigged, and animated, good-quality 3D models. Even if you can reuse the bulk of your engine code, or even build off an existing game, as in the case of total conversion mods, the art demands have been getting steeper and steeper over the years. Looking at really prolific game studios, they tend to be in less art-intensive genres. 8/16-bit RPGs, pixel-art platformers, etc. And the people that really crank out games on a limited staff and art budget tend to reuse the same engines and assets with minor iterations. Think Spiderweb Software[1], or SSI with the Five Star games[2]. [1] http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  I have heard this as well, it suggests the single most impactful thing someone could build today would be a tool to generate game art cost effectively and quickly.
  - EwanG 10y ago
    I would certainly throw money at such a tool, but the question then becomes scope. Autodesk has their Character Generator and Adobe bought out Fuse that has a competing product. But there is still nothing for backgrounds, interiors, etc short of modeling software and (if you have money rather than time) purchasing quantities of assets that you then still spend time customizing.
- ben0x539 10y ago
  Maybe that's why Hearthstone was such a success, models and art for all the characters already existed!
  - colmvp 10y ago
    You have to give it up that team: A lot of people complained about how simple Hearthstone is compared to Magic, but the reality is they did a pretty good job in creating accessible card game that works on multiple platforms. I certainly have my criticism for the game such as the slow card releases, RNGfiesta, and lack of QOL updates, but ultimately the game is really well put together.
vorthrwy 10y ago
From Warcraft to Starcraft to Diablo to Overwatch and even to Hearthstone, Blizzard has found success in producing very high-quality, very balanced games with amazing replayability. I'm pretty happy with this approach. Plenty of other companies already push out half-baked games and hope they gain traction.
- hood_syntax 10y ago
  Hearthstone is not what I would call very balanced. High quality? Yes, but it's a frequent complaint amongst the game's enthusiasts (I would include myself in that group) that they do not a good job balancing the game.
  - 1123581321 10y ago
    That is a consequence of Hearthstone's focus on variety and simplicity (most of the game is powered by integers less than 10.)
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Balance is a weird aspect in most Blizzard games (as well as in any truly good game), infact it's the artfully constructed imbalance that makes them truly great. Starcraft 2 is a great example for deconstructing this design philosophy (while ironically Starcraft 1 is a great example of the complete opposite), Blizzard have intentionally and constantly changed the balance of the game and create new imbalances so the meta would evolve and be fluid by forcing players to adapt, change, and find the imbalances and find ways to deal with them. The art of most video games is not to create perfect balance but to create multiple subtle imbalances that can be discovered and overcome this in effect what creates the meta of the game and without a living meta games often can become stale and boring. Making a mathematically balanced game is easy, making an imbalanced game that is still interesting is an art form. This is what sets a few games apart from the rest, games like LoL and Starcraft are a great example of the "imbalanced by design" distilled to an art form. Hearthstone is also imbalanced by design to both create a fluid meta, as well as to push the progression both the in-game progression and the out of game monetization progression.
buzzybee 10y ago
A paraphrased quote I faintly remember from one of the original creators of Rogue(which, of course, passed through a number of different hands before it became the game we know today): "It's easy to make a new kind of game, it's much harder to make an existing game better." It's a deceptively simple piece of wisdom, but it goes a long way to explaining some of the outcomes of the business. AAA-scale development is riddled with stories of brute forced effort on every front - attempts to chase after quality without being able to define it in positive terms, resulting in dozens of retakes on the same concept. Smaller studios, being less encumbered by the usual organizational overheads, are much better prepared to plan and focus themselves exclusively around a single facet of the work and align all the other pieces around that. At the extreme end you get the solo developer, who generally produces something radically imbalanced and unmarketable, but with just a few team members, major issues get smoothed out. The risk that comes with any team change is that things don't get smoothed out in quite the same way as before - the conversations, timelines, and conventions shift around, so the pieces all get resolved slightly differently with tangible impacts on the result. Rob Pardo working on World of Warcraft, Rob Pardo working on Hearthstone, and Rob Pardo at his new venture all might as well be different designers. What will make the difference is in whether the team coordinates well. For an example of how it can flop, see Flagship Studios[0]. [0] http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3169356 http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3169356
- jack9 10y ago
  > it's much harder to make an existing game better. Im not sure who thinks this is "wise", when it's simply not true. The problem is making a game better enough to gain marketshare before the changes are absorbed by the dominant player.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
Hearthstone was their attempt at a smaller game. Unfortunately, it quickly skyrocketed in popularity. Poor Blizzard.
teamonkey 10y ago
It's purely opportunity cost. Blizzard makes a ton of money from it's projects. They will have calculated that the expected dollar return is greater by investing in existing products and occasionally launching new high-budget titles like Overwatch.

by xs 10y ago

jimminy 10y ago

You're assuming that they don't allow this kind of tinkering internally. But they actually due, Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone were both created as internal passion projects by staff, grew interest inside of the company, polished and released. Blizzard does focus on quality and feel, and is very open about their willingness to push dates or cancel projects if it doesn't meet their quality standard. Titan didn't work as an MMO, and a lot of that work was reused in Overwatch.

jbpetersen 10y ago
It would be really nice to see them spawn another brand that they can use for more easily publishing things that don't meet "Blizzard" standards.
- rgreasons 10y ago
  They already have one! It's called Activision.

thearn4 10y ago

I've thought to myself before that an space sim MMO taking place in the Starcraft universe, if done right, would practically print money. But that's always an extremely easy thing for someone to think who is on the outside and not on the hook to develop it. I try to keep this in mind as the space sim genre is awakening again with E:D, Star Citizen, NMS, etc.

douche 10y ago

The bottleneck is art, from what I understand. It's not trivial to generate enough skinned, rigged, and animated, good-quality 3D models. Even if you can reuse the bulk of your engine code, or even build off an existing game, as in the case of total conversion mods, the art demands have been getting steeper and steeper over the years. Looking at really prolific game studios, they tend to be in less art-intensive genres. 8/16-bit RPGs, pixel-art platformers, etc. And the people that really crank out games on a limited staff and art budget tend to reuse the same engines and assets with minor iterations. Think Spiderweb Software[1], or SSI with the Five Star games[2]. [1] http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General

ChuckMcM 10y ago
I have heard this as well, it suggests the single most impactful thing someone could build today would be a tool to generate game art cost effectively and quickly.
- EwanG 10y ago
  I would certainly throw money at such a tool, but the question then becomes scope. Autodesk has their Character Generator and Adobe bought out Fuse that has a competing product. But there is still nothing for backgrounds, interiors, etc short of modeling software and (if you have money rather than time) purchasing quantities of assets that you then still spend time customizing.
ben0x539 10y ago
Maybe that's why Hearthstone was such a success, models and art for all the characters already existed!
- colmvp 10y ago
  You have to give it up that team: A lot of people complained about how simple Hearthstone is compared to Magic, but the reality is they did a pretty good job in creating accessible card game that works on multiple platforms. I certainly have my criticism for the game such as the slow card releases, RNGfiesta, and lack of QOL updates, but ultimately the game is really well put together.

vorthrwy 10y ago

From Warcraft to Starcraft to Diablo to Overwatch and even to Hearthstone, Blizzard has found success in producing very high-quality, very balanced games with amazing replayability. I'm pretty happy with this approach. Plenty of other companies already push out half-baked games and hope they gain traction.

hood_syntax 10y ago
Hearthstone is not what I would call very balanced. High quality? Yes, but it's a frequent complaint amongst the game's enthusiasts (I would include myself in that group) that they do not a good job balancing the game.
- 1123581321 10y ago
  That is a consequence of Hearthstone's focus on variety and simplicity (most of the game is powered by integers less than 10.)
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Balance is a weird aspect in most Blizzard games (as well as in any truly good game), infact it's the artfully constructed imbalance that makes them truly great. Starcraft 2 is a great example for deconstructing this design philosophy (while ironically Starcraft 1 is a great example of the complete opposite), Blizzard have intentionally and constantly changed the balance of the game and create new imbalances so the meta would evolve and be fluid by forcing players to adapt, change, and find the imbalances and find ways to deal with them. The art of most video games is not to create perfect balance but to create multiple subtle imbalances that can be discovered and overcome this in effect what creates the meta of the game and without a living meta games often can become stale and boring. Making a mathematically balanced game is easy, making an imbalanced game that is still interesting is an art form. This is what sets a few games apart from the rest, games like LoL and Starcraft are a great example of the "imbalanced by design" distilled to an art form. Hearthstone is also imbalanced by design to both create a fluid meta, as well as to push the progression both the in-game progression and the out of game monetization progression.

buzzybee 10y ago

A paraphrased quote I faintly remember from one of the original creators of Rogue(which, of course, passed through a number of different hands before it became the game we know today): "It's easy to make a new kind of game, it's much harder to make an existing game better." It's a deceptively simple piece of wisdom, but it goes a long way to explaining some of the outcomes of the business. AAA-scale development is riddled with stories of brute forced effort on every front - attempts to chase after quality without being able to define it in positive terms, resulting in dozens of retakes on the same concept. Smaller studios, being less encumbered by the usual organizational overheads, are much better prepared to plan and focus themselves exclusively around a single facet of the work and align all the other pieces around that. At the extreme end you get the solo developer, who generally produces something radically imbalanced and unmarketable, but with just a few team members, major issues get smoothed out. The risk that comes with any team change is that things don't get smoothed out in quite the same way as before - the conversations, timelines, and conventions shift around, so the pieces all get resolved slightly differently with tangible impacts on the result. Rob Pardo working on World of Warcraft, Rob Pardo working on Hearthstone, and Rob Pardo at his new venture all might as well be different designers. What will make the difference is in whether the team coordinates well. For an example of how it can flop, see Flagship Studios[0]. [0] http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3169356 http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3169356

jack9 10y ago
> it's much harder to make an existing game better. Im not sure who thinks this is "wise", when it's simply not true. The problem is making a game better enough to gain marketshare before the changes are absorbed by the dominant player.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

Hearthstone was their attempt at a smaller game. Unfortunately, it quickly skyrocketed in popularity. Poor Blizzard.

teamonkey 10y ago

It's purely opportunity cost. Blizzard makes a ton of money from it's projects. They will have calculated that the expected dollar return is greater by investing in existing products and occasionally launching new high-budget titles like Overwatch.