Okay, so I was thinking about trying to salvage my widely unpopular "Starcraft 2 Impressions" post when suddenly -- bam! Blizzard hands me this topic on a silver platter (is that the right way to use that expression?) Instant controversy, which is a poor writer's best friend.
So what 's the deal, exactly? If you haven't heard yet, the thread is right here. If you don't feel like wading through that, here's the Cliffs Notes version: all Blizzard forums will use RealID, starting sometime before the launch of Starcraft II. What does this mean? Well, any post that you make on those forums will show your real name, the one you gave when creating your Battle.net account.
What are the pros?
Blizzard's official statement is that "The official forums have always been a great place to discuss the latest info on our games, offer ideas and suggestions, and share experiences with other players -- however, the forums have also earned a reputation as a place where flame wars, trolling, and other unpleasantness run wild. Removing the veil of anonymity typical to online dialogue will contribute to a more positive forum environment, promote constructive conversations, and connect the Blizzard community in ways they haven’t been connected before. "
I can certainly understand Blizzard's desire to root out misbehaving users--the official forums have been a haven of spammers and trolls for more than a decade. Now, the ramifications of this change are in two parts: first, posting now requires a Battle.net account, and second, your real name will be shown. Requiring a Battle.net account to post is a move that Blizzard should have made a long time ago, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. But, it seems to me that revealing people's names has very little benefit. I've seen some people argue that people will be more likely to behave when they can no longer hide behind an account name. This might be true--for example, if, say, Ababmer was posting with his actual name instead of his account name, maybe he might tone down his rhetoric a little (or maybe not. Ababmer, if you happen to be reading this, sorry if that's not true!). Alternatively, he might simply create a new account with a false name.
Some people have theorized that Blizzard will put some system into place to prevent people from putting anything they want for a Battle.net name (in preparation, I have created an account in which I am named "WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW"), such as tying it to a credit card or something like that. I don't see that as being likely, but we'll see. At the moment it hasn't been announced, so I'm going to assume they're going to leave the current account system as is. Therefore, I cannot claim any additional prevention of trolling as a pro, as such trolling occurred even on the SC2 Beta forums, where posting privilege is already linked to your Battle.net account.
If Blizzard does manage, somehow, to prevent people from using false names, then it is possible that we might see a decrease in obnoxious trolls and spammers, especially the shock factor ones. That would be a solid positive, but, again--isn't most of that accomplished just by linking posting ability to Battle.net account? As far as I know, keygens or other traditional ban-bypassing techniques don't work with Battle.net accounts, so they would already cut down on the worst offenders.
Blizzard's extremely open-ended second reason is to "connect the Blizzard community in ways they haven’t been connected before." I don't know exactly what kind of ways they might have in mind, but it sounds ominous, in a more-than-vaguely Facebook-like manner. Well, one good thing this might bring is to make people aware of the importance of keeping your stuff private on the Internet, whether it be on Facebook, Twitter, or wherever you might go.
What are the cons? Well, many people are extremely worried that having their posts linked to their real names will result in repercussions, either from angry posters or other Internet lunatics. Other worries include stalkers (especially for those of us who happen to be female) and perhaps employers doing a name search on Google or other sites. There are also legal concerns about distribution of private information, especially in certain countries (I heard Canada's laws mentioned, for example). In addition, revealing your name makes you slightly more vulnerable to e-mail spammers. I saw at least one person say he is in the military and is not authorized to give out his full name, but I'm not sure what the deal with that exactly is, so I can't comment on it. Other than that, I'm going to address these issues one by one.
About employers turning you down or forming a negative opinion of you because they see that you post on a gaming forum, somehow, this seems a little paranoid. I just don't really see this happening much at all. Of course, I am no employer, and, to my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done before, so we'll have to see what ends up happening.
I think the concern about real-life stalking might be...slightly exaggerated--unless a stalker lives extremely close to you (or is exceptionally unstable), you won't really be bothered in real life. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it most likely won't. Of course, the unlikeliness of it happening is offset by the seriousness of such a threat, and I'm not really willing to bet my safety on it, so this is certainly a valid concern.
More worrisome to me, though, is Internet stalking, say, via Facebook or other communities or something like that--those threats are very real and have happened before on numerous occasions. Furthermore, posters on these forums have shown a distinct tendency for viciously attacking people for relatively unimportant offenses. An obvious example is what happened to Bashiok after he gave out his real name. The hounding he received was hellish, although it's not necessarily indicative of what will happen to regular users. After all, he was the only target, with thousands and thousands of vengeful forumers out to get him. Still, it only takes one determined person to harass you and make you miserable.
Any female gamer knows that you generally want to keep your identity a secret. The consequences of revealing your gender are occasionally amusing but mostly negative. I think girls in particular are more prone to worry about stalkers, online or otherwise, and for good reason. Many people on the forums know my name, as I am not very protective of it. Fortunately for me, it's a pretty generic name, and no one has yet found personal information about me from it. Still, the choice to reveal it was mine, and I'm pretty sure it was unwise on my part. I don't like the idea of someone making the decision for me.
E-mail spam is hit-and-miss. For those posters who use their real name, or some variation thereof, for their e-mail address? You're probably in trouble. But I don't know how common that is, and it's probably a good idea not to do that, anyway. Using a different e-mail will make you safer in general, and immune to this security problem in particular.
Legal problems...eh, I'm no lawyer. I have no idea about this portends legally with respect to online privacy. I don't think Blizzard is doing anything illegal with this (at least, not in the United States), but I'm really not sure either way.
What should Blizzard do instead? If not RealID, how else can Blizzard prevent the forums from being...well, what they are now? If there was a way to discourage trolls and spammers without compromising security, perhaps they would take it. The latest news seems to indicate that, unlike originally intended, Blizzard employees will not be using the RealID system. This indicates that Blizzard comprehends that there are possible security issues with revealing people's names. If this is not important to them, well, there's nothing that can be done. But lets assume that they do care about this.
Well, what's the number one thing which keeps spammers, etc. going? CD-keys. An infinite supply of CD-keys. Blizzard has not addressed this issue until now, which is what has enabled the continued presence of even the most blatant offenders. Simply requiring a Battle.net account with a valid game attached to it would remove the ability to dodge or circumvent bans, meaning that banning offenders would actually work. Wouldn't that be enough? There were a fair number of miscreants (I hate that I just used that word) on the SC2 Beta forums, but that was mostly because forum access was free, granted by one's ability to get into beta. I doubt that people will be so nonchalant about CD-keys which they actually bought (or, if they are, they will be gone soon enough).
Is there anything else to be done? In general, making bans stricter seems to be the right answer, though I'm hesitant to offer that as a solution because Blizzard's system is fairly capricious. Still, making forum bans longer, or perhaps apply to ingame privileges as well, would be preferable to revealing everyone's real name.
The obvious solution would be better forum moderation, both in quality and number of mods, but Blizzard is apparently unwilling or unable to do this, so I have counted this out as an option. However, in combination with the Battle.net account system, this would effectively prevent spammers/trolls from being too much of an annoyance.
What can you do now? If you don't like the changes, there are a number of things you can try, with varying degrees of effectiveness. First of all, you can post on the official forums (dubious). Second, you can post about it and tell people about it and comment about it all over the Internet (also dubious). Third, you can call Blizzard or contact entities like the FTC. I don't have a clue on how effective that will be, but it's probably your best bet. Just get the word out, and express your discontent (or, if you do like the changes, express your contentment).
If the RealID system goes through, though, how can you protect your privacy? The obvious answer is to post on a Battle.net account which does not have your real name attached to it. Make it a pseudonym, your current account name, a fake name, random gibberish, whatever. Hide your identity and keep it safe.
If you, for some reason, don't wish to do this, or cannot do this, then search yourself up on Google, or Veromi, or Whitepages, and see if you can find yourself easily. If you can't be found, chances are that you are relatively safe. If you can be found, try and secure your other online identities that might use your name or information, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google groups, other message boards or online communites, etc. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, try not to have an e-mail address which could be easily guessed from your name. Try to minimize the damage a potential stalker or harasser is able to do.
Time will tell what comes from this. Will negative feedback cause Blizzard to change their mind? Will forums actually become a security risk? Or is Blizzard correct in assuming little or no negative consequences will arise from this decision? I can't rightfully say, though I have a fairly negative opinion of their actions. We'll see. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Starcraft 2 Beta: Phase 1 Impressions
Beta has been over for about...what, 2 weeks now? I don't quite remember. In any case, due to a request from a certain SC2GDF user, here are some overdue remarks about the current state of Starcraft 2. Please note that, while I am not a very good player, I am apparently not a very bad one, either, ranking mid-Diamond league. Therefore, I have a reasonable idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to balance issues, but I am no expert. Another thing to take into account is that my computer is a piece of garbage which experienced so much difficulty running SC2 that I renamed my account to "Lag" after one of the resets. Finally (and this should be obvious), it would make no sense for me to say everything I think about every little thing in the beta. Instead, I'll try to hit the highlights, especially issues which are controversial. Without further ado, then, let's get this thing going, yeah?
Battle.net 2.0 - Names, identifiers and friend lists
Honestly, I was fine with the first system they used (name and identifier), though I would have like to see some more punctuation allowed. At least in this implementation, you could add friends in a normal manner, just like you used to. The second method (name) was alright, but the fact that names didn't have to be unique was pretty nonsensical. To make things worse, you could only add friends via Real ID or playing with them in a game? Ridiculous.
Blizzard says they're bringing the old stuff back in the next phase, but with an identifier which consists of an arbitrarily assigned three-digit number. Well, at least we'll be able to add friends normally again, but if there's going to be an identifier, I'd prefer if it was either something I can choose, or something which no one ever sees. In fact, why not just add friends via identifier? Like, when you hit add friend, it prompts you for their identifier, which they can give you. Okay, that idea sucked.
A lot of people propose that Blizzard return to the way they had it for Warcraft 3. I think that would be fine, but I don't see it happening, and, frankly, if they just stuck to the way they had it at first, I wouldn't be unhappy.
Battle.net 2.0 - Chat channels, clans, custom games, and leagues
No chat channels! A lot of people are up in arms about this, for sure. To be honest, I never used them much before, and I'm mostly satisfied with the stuff that's in place. But I'm the kind of person who rarely talks to anybody, and I'm a rarity. I know a ton of people who used private channels all the time to meet with their friends. It seems stupid to take them out when they are already an established system. I remember a GM posting about this (was it Bashiok?) stating that it was, like, prohibitive to monitor all those channels or something like that. But do they really have to do that? Don't most EULAs involve some form of disavowing of responsibility for online interactions? And don't even get me started on the fact that clans aren't available. I consider that one of the most important features of the original Battle.net, since that's the only way I really contacted other people. I'm pretty unhappy about that, but there's not really much I can say that hasn't already been said.
I didn't look too much into the map publishing system yet, but from what I've heard, it sounds pretty restrictive. Only 5 maps with a total of 20 MB? And when you take it off, no one can play it anymore? And no custom game names, either. Maybe if they at least let you put a little information in the box when you host it. Whatever. My computer lags too badly to play most customs, anyway, but in ordinary circumstances I would not be pleased.
Let me get this out of the way: For the most part, I like the league system. I don't see any reason that lower level players shouldn't feel better about themselves. However, I do dislike that you have no way at all to reach some kind of global ranking. The way it stands right now, if you reach the top of Diamond, then wow! You're awesome! Except there are hundreds of people just like you! Maybe if Blizzard does something with those "Tournament Qualifying Positions" it will end up better, but right now it's a little of a let down. The matchmaking itself is superb, though.
Gameplay - General
The most common complaint that I've heard about the game is that it's too fast, just a mass-up-and-attack-move-fest with no emphasis on micro. Honestly? That's the way I had to play it. With lag as bad as mine it was all I could do to order my units to attack-move into the enemy base. But I've seen a few games where players better than I did innovative and micro-intensive things, and it gives me hope for the future of this game. My ultimate hope is that, when people really get good at this game, we'll see micro that happens at the same blazing speed at which Starcraft 2 battles take place. Of course, I have little evidence that such a thing will really happen, but I can dream, can't I?
From what I've seen, my conclusion is that low-level games go mostly the same as in the original, with little micro or macro. Mid-level players seem to develop macro first, since it's so much easier in Starcraft 2. This is what leads to the attack-move games which comprise a majority of play on Battle.net. But high-level players, the kind you see on Youtube commentaries, generally work a little more micro back into their games. If this trend continues I just might see my dream realized.
Oh, one huge thing I want to mention before I go on--replay and observer functionality. Amazing. Everything I always hoped for. I suppose maybe if they let you hide the replay length it would be better. But I like it a lot already.
Gameplay - Terran
I'm really bad with Terran. I'm the worst. I was considering skipping this part, but then realized I needed to say a few things about the metagame. Originally, every Terran player and their mother was using M&M&M builds, which were considered totally overpowered. Yet, despite those units receiving virtually no nerfs, the metagame shifted to lots of heavy mech builds, especially involving Siege Tanks. This is my key piece of evidence, which I will argue indicates that Starcraft 2 is not as shallow as people first thought. I think there is enough room for this game to grow. Right now, things are extremely chaotic, especially since Blizzard shifts things around with every patch, but once it settles a little more I think we'll be able to make a better judgment. Although, we have 2 expansions on the way...
Battlecruisers seem pretty underused, like in the original. Not sure if anything needs to be done, though. Like most late-tech units, they get used once in a while to great effect, so I suppose they're fine.
Hellions are fun, but way inferior to Vultures. My micro is crap and I could still make Vultures do much more than I can get out of these stupid dune buggies...even if I always forgot to lay my Spider Mines.
Ravens are exciting. I really think these guys are underrated. Auto-turret seems terrible, but I've seen it used for harass to great effect. Point-defense-drone is ridiculous, similar in importance to a Starcraft 1 spell. It seems almost like Dark Swarm or something to me. Starcraft 2 has precious few of these abilities.
One awesome thing I loved about the original was how important mobility (especially via dropship) was. Now that Medivacs are quite common, I think more people should be taking advantage of these things. I know I always forget to.
Gameplay - Zerg
Still my favorite race. Their propensity for attack-move is nothing short of spectacular. I wish we could see more variety other than 2-hatch Roach/Hydra or 2-hatch Muta. Zerglings are way deadly now that pathing is improved. You know, now that I think about it, there's not a whole lot to say here. Zerg is a pretty straightforward race...
Oh, I know. Zerg casters. This is kind of a weird situation. Blizzard has been messing with these guys all over the place, up to the very end of the first phase of beta. I doubt I even know where all the abilities ended up by now. Okay, I didn't have anything to say about this after all.
Bring back the ability to dance air units like in Starcraft 1! Muta micro was probably my favorite part of the whole game and now it's not that great :(
One thing exciting about Zerg matchups in the original was how Zerg tech switches has to be timed right and executed with strategy (covering Lair tech with speedlings, covering Hive tech with Lurkers or Muta), and there was a real sense of power once you hit lair and got enough gas. That doesn't seem to be there anymore. It's a pity.
Gameplay - Protoss
Okay, first of all, Warp Gates are amazing and fun. At first, I didn't really like them because I didn't know how to use them, but they're super cool. Ever since I discovered the 4-gate timing push I've been using it every game. For some reason, Protoss don't seem as strong as in the original. Like, their units feel just as fragile as anyone else. It never seemed that way before. Oh, well.
Zealots feel a lot weaker and generally useless in most parts of the game. Sure, they mow down Zerglings, but unless you have speed, you won't be getting anything else down with these guys. On that subject, I think Charge Zealots are totally underrated. They're really effective against a lot of Terran strats, and decimate Hydra-heavy Zerg builds. Maybe if they made Charge a little cheaper? Or research a little faster? Along those lines, Blink also needs to get used more. Recently I've seen more people get it, which satisfies me.
I never understood why they put DTs and HTs in separate buildings. Haven't these two Protoss factions started working closer together? I mean, they can fuse with each other to make Twilight Archons! How come they use different buildings now, when they used the same one in the first Starcraft?
Psi Storm seems weak after using it in Starcraft one. But now that there's smartcasting, I guess it makes sense. I've seen more people using this recently, as well. Hooray!
And now, the unit everyone loves to hate: the Void Ray. Is it imba? I think not. Maybe it seems a little too devastating if you successfully hide the tech, but I think that's fine. They're kind of like DTs or Banshees in that way. Just like those units, the Void Ray easily pops if you attack it with just about anything. Of course, the Void Ray is the ultimate imba FFA unit.
Does Fleet Beacon really need to be that expensive? All it really lets you do is build two units that no one wants anyway: Carrier, and Mothership. Carrier has at least marginal use, despite its cost, but Mothership takes so long to build and costs so much that there is almost no point in using what is essentially a big, clunky Arbiter.
Okay, I'm going to kind of cut it off there. This is kind of abrupt, but I'm tired and I'm coming up blank as to what else I should write. If I missed something, or if any of you out there want to bring up a subject you think I should address, feel free to drop me a message. I'm assuming there's actually someone read this, of course *peers out into the computer screen*
Battle.net 2.0 - Names, identifiers and friend lists
Honestly, I was fine with the first system they used (name and identifier), though I would have like to see some more punctuation allowed. At least in this implementation, you could add friends in a normal manner, just like you used to. The second method (name) was alright, but the fact that names didn't have to be unique was pretty nonsensical. To make things worse, you could only add friends via Real ID or playing with them in a game? Ridiculous.
Blizzard says they're bringing the old stuff back in the next phase, but with an identifier which consists of an arbitrarily assigned three-digit number. Well, at least we'll be able to add friends normally again, but if there's going to be an identifier, I'd prefer if it was either something I can choose, or something which no one ever sees. In fact, why not just add friends via identifier? Like, when you hit add friend, it prompts you for their identifier, which they can give you. Okay, that idea sucked.
A lot of people propose that Blizzard return to the way they had it for Warcraft 3. I think that would be fine, but I don't see it happening, and, frankly, if they just stuck to the way they had it at first, I wouldn't be unhappy.
Battle.net 2.0 - Chat channels, clans, custom games, and leagues
No chat channels! A lot of people are up in arms about this, for sure. To be honest, I never used them much before, and I'm mostly satisfied with the stuff that's in place. But I'm the kind of person who rarely talks to anybody, and I'm a rarity. I know a ton of people who used private channels all the time to meet with their friends. It seems stupid to take them out when they are already an established system. I remember a GM posting about this (was it Bashiok?) stating that it was, like, prohibitive to monitor all those channels or something like that. But do they really have to do that? Don't most EULAs involve some form of disavowing of responsibility for online interactions? And don't even get me started on the fact that clans aren't available. I consider that one of the most important features of the original Battle.net, since that's the only way I really contacted other people. I'm pretty unhappy about that, but there's not really much I can say that hasn't already been said.
I didn't look too much into the map publishing system yet, but from what I've heard, it sounds pretty restrictive. Only 5 maps with a total of 20 MB? And when you take it off, no one can play it anymore? And no custom game names, either. Maybe if they at least let you put a little information in the box when you host it. Whatever. My computer lags too badly to play most customs, anyway, but in ordinary circumstances I would not be pleased.
Let me get this out of the way: For the most part, I like the league system. I don't see any reason that lower level players shouldn't feel better about themselves. However, I do dislike that you have no way at all to reach some kind of global ranking. The way it stands right now, if you reach the top of Diamond, then wow! You're awesome! Except there are hundreds of people just like you! Maybe if Blizzard does something with those "Tournament Qualifying Positions" it will end up better, but right now it's a little of a let down. The matchmaking itself is superb, though.
Gameplay - General
The most common complaint that I've heard about the game is that it's too fast, just a mass-up-and-attack-move-fest with no emphasis on micro. Honestly? That's the way I had to play it. With lag as bad as mine it was all I could do to order my units to attack-move into the enemy base. But I've seen a few games where players better than I did innovative and micro-intensive things, and it gives me hope for the future of this game. My ultimate hope is that, when people really get good at this game, we'll see micro that happens at the same blazing speed at which Starcraft 2 battles take place. Of course, I have little evidence that such a thing will really happen, but I can dream, can't I?
From what I've seen, my conclusion is that low-level games go mostly the same as in the original, with little micro or macro. Mid-level players seem to develop macro first, since it's so much easier in Starcraft 2. This is what leads to the attack-move games which comprise a majority of play on Battle.net. But high-level players, the kind you see on Youtube commentaries, generally work a little more micro back into their games. If this trend continues I just might see my dream realized.
Oh, one huge thing I want to mention before I go on--replay and observer functionality. Amazing. Everything I always hoped for. I suppose maybe if they let you hide the replay length it would be better. But I like it a lot already.
Gameplay - Terran
I'm really bad with Terran. I'm the worst. I was considering skipping this part, but then realized I needed to say a few things about the metagame. Originally, every Terran player and their mother was using M&M&M builds, which were considered totally overpowered. Yet, despite those units receiving virtually no nerfs, the metagame shifted to lots of heavy mech builds, especially involving Siege Tanks. This is my key piece of evidence, which I will argue indicates that Starcraft 2 is not as shallow as people first thought. I think there is enough room for this game to grow. Right now, things are extremely chaotic, especially since Blizzard shifts things around with every patch, but once it settles a little more I think we'll be able to make a better judgment. Although, we have 2 expansions on the way...
Battlecruisers seem pretty underused, like in the original. Not sure if anything needs to be done, though. Like most late-tech units, they get used once in a while to great effect, so I suppose they're fine.
Hellions are fun, but way inferior to Vultures. My micro is crap and I could still make Vultures do much more than I can get out of these stupid dune buggies...even if I always forgot to lay my Spider Mines.
Ravens are exciting. I really think these guys are underrated. Auto-turret seems terrible, but I've seen it used for harass to great effect. Point-defense-drone is ridiculous, similar in importance to a Starcraft 1 spell. It seems almost like Dark Swarm or something to me. Starcraft 2 has precious few of these abilities.
One awesome thing I loved about the original was how important mobility (especially via dropship) was. Now that Medivacs are quite common, I think more people should be taking advantage of these things. I know I always forget to.
Gameplay - Zerg
Still my favorite race. Their propensity for attack-move is nothing short of spectacular. I wish we could see more variety other than 2-hatch Roach/Hydra or 2-hatch Muta. Zerglings are way deadly now that pathing is improved. You know, now that I think about it, there's not a whole lot to say here. Zerg is a pretty straightforward race...
Oh, I know. Zerg casters. This is kind of a weird situation. Blizzard has been messing with these guys all over the place, up to the very end of the first phase of beta. I doubt I even know where all the abilities ended up by now. Okay, I didn't have anything to say about this after all.
Bring back the ability to dance air units like in Starcraft 1! Muta micro was probably my favorite part of the whole game and now it's not that great :(
One thing exciting about Zerg matchups in the original was how Zerg tech switches has to be timed right and executed with strategy (covering Lair tech with speedlings, covering Hive tech with Lurkers or Muta), and there was a real sense of power once you hit lair and got enough gas. That doesn't seem to be there anymore. It's a pity.
Gameplay - Protoss
Okay, first of all, Warp Gates are amazing and fun. At first, I didn't really like them because I didn't know how to use them, but they're super cool. Ever since I discovered the 4-gate timing push I've been using it every game. For some reason, Protoss don't seem as strong as in the original. Like, their units feel just as fragile as anyone else. It never seemed that way before. Oh, well.
Zealots feel a lot weaker and generally useless in most parts of the game. Sure, they mow down Zerglings, but unless you have speed, you won't be getting anything else down with these guys. On that subject, I think Charge Zealots are totally underrated. They're really effective against a lot of Terran strats, and decimate Hydra-heavy Zerg builds. Maybe if they made Charge a little cheaper? Or research a little faster? Along those lines, Blink also needs to get used more. Recently I've seen more people get it, which satisfies me.
I never understood why they put DTs and HTs in separate buildings. Haven't these two Protoss factions started working closer together? I mean, they can fuse with each other to make Twilight Archons! How come they use different buildings now, when they used the same one in the first Starcraft?
Psi Storm seems weak after using it in Starcraft one. But now that there's smartcasting, I guess it makes sense. I've seen more people using this recently, as well. Hooray!
And now, the unit everyone loves to hate: the Void Ray. Is it imba? I think not. Maybe it seems a little too devastating if you successfully hide the tech, but I think that's fine. They're kind of like DTs or Banshees in that way. Just like those units, the Void Ray easily pops if you attack it with just about anything. Of course, the Void Ray is the ultimate imba FFA unit.
Does Fleet Beacon really need to be that expensive? All it really lets you do is build two units that no one wants anyway: Carrier, and Mothership. Carrier has at least marginal use, despite its cost, but Mothership takes so long to build and costs so much that there is almost no point in using what is essentially a big, clunky Arbiter.
Okay, I'm going to kind of cut it off there. This is kind of abrupt, but I'm tired and I'm coming up blank as to what else I should write. If I missed something, or if any of you out there want to bring up a subject you think I should address, feel free to drop me a message. I'm assuming there's actually someone read this, of course *peers out into the computer screen*
Friday, March 19, 2010
Beta drama! Oh my!
Over the past few weeks, the forums have been wracked with complaints about Blizzard's system for distributing the beta keys which so many people covet. Generally, these complaints fall into one of four categories:
1. Complaints about low-skill/casual users or uninterested people playing in (or not playing in) beta.
2. Complaints about people receiving multiple keys.
3. Complaints about selling of keys.
4. Complaints from Blizzcon users about them not getting an appropriate key.
Of the above, number four really seems to have the most merit, in my opinion. I really do think it's kind of a douche move on Blizzard's part that a Blizzcon attendee might not get a chance to participate. Granted, these threads have died down recently, so I wonder if this issue has already been addressed. I don't really have any clue.
The obvious response to the first complaint is that the casual base is a part of the target consumer group and therefore must be tested for quality assurance. I mean, they want to make the game fun for everyone--how are they supposed to do that without any lower-level players getting to give feedback? Now, there is some understandable ire at the "balance" suggestions given by butthurt casuals, but, honestly, I think Blizzard is smart enough to make the right decision. They're not infallible, of course, but they're also not idiots and they have quite a lot of experience. Anyway, there's not a whole lot new in this paragraph. God knows I've seen this stuff posted a few times around the forums.
As for players who don't really participate in the beta, everything I've heard indicates that Blizzard's metric for sending out more invites is primarily based on the user load of the server(s). Therefore, a non-participating user might as well not be in the beta, for all intents and purposes. Again, this is stuff I've read around, and not really original thought.
Second complaint is a pretty decent one. I've heard tales of people receiving opt-in invites on multiple accounts. It seems kind of strange that Blizzard wouldn't have some kind of system set up to catch stuff like this, but I'm actually not sure if it would be that simple to stop it from happening. The most obvious thing to do would be some kind of IP checking, but that would unfairly penalize different players in the same house or dorm or whatever. Can't think of too many other practical ways to filter it out, since there are not a whole lot of potential unique identifiers in the Battle.net info.
Third one seems like an offshoot of the first two, and there really isn't a point in complaining about it because it's essentially impossible to stop. I saw one idea about having Blizzard itself sell keys, but that doesn't seem like a practical solution for a couple reasons, none of which I intend to go into in this post.
Anyway, people have been making sweeping statements along the lines of "Blizzard's invite system is broke." I've even seen the word 'ethics' used a couple times, but I didn't look closely at them, so I don't know if they were jokes or not. But is the system really broken? I don't think so. I mean, what is the stated goal of the opt-in program? To get a wide variety of users with different system specs into the beta. No information is available, but I can't see how they would fail to do this. In that sense, the system succeeded. Furthermore, they made everyone feel like they had a chance to get into beta, which I think is already a plus. On the downside, making people feel like they could get in makes it that much more frustrating when they inevitably don't, and I think that a lot of the anger right now is caused by this. It definitely doesn't help that the wait for the beta was so long.
Now, the latest development is that beta users can invite a friend (just one, right? It sounded like it), and people who are out of the loop are crying foul because it gives to those who have already, while ignoring those who have not. However, I think there are actually sound reasons for this course of action. First, being able to play with a friend is a great incentive for users to continue testing. Second, the slightly-less-random nature of this distribution method will probably result in the keys being given to people who will actually use them, increasing the number of players on Battle.net by an amount which is relatively easily predicted by Blizzard.
All in all, I think Blizzard has handled the situation pretty well, and I dare anyone to think of a better system which is still practical. The Blizzcon situation could have been handled a lot better, and I take issue with the fact that I don't have a key *shakes fist* but this certainly is not a debacle or disaster in any meaning of the word.
1. Complaints about low-skill/casual users or uninterested people playing in (or not playing in) beta.
2. Complaints about people receiving multiple keys.
3. Complaints about selling of keys.
4. Complaints from Blizzcon users about them not getting an appropriate key.
Of the above, number four really seems to have the most merit, in my opinion. I really do think it's kind of a douche move on Blizzard's part that a Blizzcon attendee might not get a chance to participate. Granted, these threads have died down recently, so I wonder if this issue has already been addressed. I don't really have any clue.
The obvious response to the first complaint is that the casual base is a part of the target consumer group and therefore must be tested for quality assurance. I mean, they want to make the game fun for everyone--how are they supposed to do that without any lower-level players getting to give feedback? Now, there is some understandable ire at the "balance" suggestions given by butthurt casuals, but, honestly, I think Blizzard is smart enough to make the right decision. They're not infallible, of course, but they're also not idiots and they have quite a lot of experience. Anyway, there's not a whole lot new in this paragraph. God knows I've seen this stuff posted a few times around the forums.
As for players who don't really participate in the beta, everything I've heard indicates that Blizzard's metric for sending out more invites is primarily based on the user load of the server(s). Therefore, a non-participating user might as well not be in the beta, for all intents and purposes. Again, this is stuff I've read around, and not really original thought.
Second complaint is a pretty decent one. I've heard tales of people receiving opt-in invites on multiple accounts. It seems kind of strange that Blizzard wouldn't have some kind of system set up to catch stuff like this, but I'm actually not sure if it would be that simple to stop it from happening. The most obvious thing to do would be some kind of IP checking, but that would unfairly penalize different players in the same house or dorm or whatever. Can't think of too many other practical ways to filter it out, since there are not a whole lot of potential unique identifiers in the Battle.net info.
Third one seems like an offshoot of the first two, and there really isn't a point in complaining about it because it's essentially impossible to stop. I saw one idea about having Blizzard itself sell keys, but that doesn't seem like a practical solution for a couple reasons, none of which I intend to go into in this post.
Anyway, people have been making sweeping statements along the lines of "Blizzard's invite system is broke." I've even seen the word 'ethics' used a couple times, but I didn't look closely at them, so I don't know if they were jokes or not. But is the system really broken? I don't think so. I mean, what is the stated goal of the opt-in program? To get a wide variety of users with different system specs into the beta. No information is available, but I can't see how they would fail to do this. In that sense, the system succeeded. Furthermore, they made everyone feel like they had a chance to get into beta, which I think is already a plus. On the downside, making people feel like they could get in makes it that much more frustrating when they inevitably don't, and I think that a lot of the anger right now is caused by this. It definitely doesn't help that the wait for the beta was so long.
Now, the latest development is that beta users can invite a friend (just one, right? It sounded like it), and people who are out of the loop are crying foul because it gives to those who have already, while ignoring those who have not. However, I think there are actually sound reasons for this course of action. First, being able to play with a friend is a great incentive for users to continue testing. Second, the slightly-less-random nature of this distribution method will probably result in the keys being given to people who will actually use them, increasing the number of players on Battle.net by an amount which is relatively easily predicted by Blizzard.
All in all, I think Blizzard has handled the situation pretty well, and I dare anyone to think of a better system which is still practical. The Blizzcon situation could have been handled a lot better, and I take issue with the fact that I don't have a key *shakes fist* but this certainly is not a debacle or disaster in any meaning of the word.
Monday, March 8, 2010
ITT: I play Starcraft 2
I recently discovered that a friend of a close friend (who is now suddenly my close friend? No?) got his beta invite, so yesterday a couple friends jammed on over to his house and we took turns playing.
Initial impressions:
--The game is still fast. It has every bit of Starcraft 1's speed (and it does seem like things die just a bit faster).
--I'm bad. I mean really bad. The account was in bronze league, but I still lost every game where I didn't play Zerg, and the only reason I won those was because I went Starcraft 1 on their asses and zergling/muta'd them.
--Macro mechanics are really easy to forget about, though I suppose I'll get better with practice. My queen kept ending up with a huge pool of mana
--Overlord is "v"!!! Muta is "t"! Probe and Pylon are 'e'?! GRAAAAA I suppose I'll get used to the hotkeys after a while. It is nice having them all on the left.
--MBS doesn't really seem to have much impact at all for Zerg. Didn't get a chance to try it with other races, but, I mean, with a Queen you can pretty much produce military off one base.
--worker auto-split feels kind of cheese but it's not really important. Starting with 6 gets the game going a little sooner.
--I always forget to hold ALT for health bars. I always do it in War3 but in SC2 it feels much more like Starcraft and I don't do it.
--High yield mineral expansions are nuts. This low in the ladder, other players like never scout for expansions or expand themselves, so as long as I don't get rushed or forget to use all my minerals it's a pretty easy win.
--It's weird getting used to 2 vespene at your main. Vespene didn't feel as short to me as other people are saying it is, or maybe that only kicks in when you start exhausting it.
--UI is nice, smooth and responsive like War3's.
Specific things:
--Hatchery having 2 rally points, one for workers and one for other units is nice. Still unsure about which one is set by right-click, though.
--Roaches are really good. I really like them. However I often forget to build them for a while because my build orders are crap.
--After construction reaches a specific point it seems like you can't attack SCV's doing the building any more, at least not with melee. Not sure if this is actually a thing though or if I was just mis-clicking
--Warp-in looks badass. God. Never get tired of doing it.
--Colossi are strong, so strong. They may not be Reavers but they're plenty.
--Banshees seem really tough to beat as Protoss. They harass the living crap out of your mineral line and do fine vs Stalkers. Didn't end up facing them as Zerg
--Lost a game to DTs because I didn't realize Overlords don't have detection any more :(
--Comsat looks gay.
--Psionic storm and EMP look great.
--Mutas seem to work just as well as in the original. Gotta love em. Didn't try stacking, though.
--Archons...eh, not sure if I like how they look.
--Colored psi-blades still in! Score! Colored pylons out makes me :(
Summary: Game feels just like Starcraft to me, seems just as fun. Granted, this subject isn't exactly my area of expertise, and I only had like 6 or 7 games, so I'm not even sure this is my final opinion.
Initial impressions:
--The game is still fast. It has every bit of Starcraft 1's speed (and it does seem like things die just a bit faster).
--I'm bad. I mean really bad. The account was in bronze league, but I still lost every game where I didn't play Zerg, and the only reason I won those was because I went Starcraft 1 on their asses and zergling/muta'd them.
--Macro mechanics are really easy to forget about, though I suppose I'll get better with practice. My queen kept ending up with a huge pool of mana
--Overlord is "v"!!! Muta is "t"! Probe and Pylon are 'e'?! GRAAAAA I suppose I'll get used to the hotkeys after a while. It is nice having them all on the left.
--MBS doesn't really seem to have much impact at all for Zerg. Didn't get a chance to try it with other races, but, I mean, with a Queen you can pretty much produce military off one base.
--worker auto-split feels kind of cheese but it's not really important. Starting with 6 gets the game going a little sooner.
--I always forget to hold ALT for health bars. I always do it in War3 but in SC2 it feels much more like Starcraft and I don't do it.
--High yield mineral expansions are nuts. This low in the ladder, other players like never scout for expansions or expand themselves, so as long as I don't get rushed or forget to use all my minerals it's a pretty easy win.
--It's weird getting used to 2 vespene at your main. Vespene didn't feel as short to me as other people are saying it is, or maybe that only kicks in when you start exhausting it.
--UI is nice, smooth and responsive like War3's.
Specific things:
--Hatchery having 2 rally points, one for workers and one for other units is nice. Still unsure about which one is set by right-click, though.
--Roaches are really good. I really like them. However I often forget to build them for a while because my build orders are crap.
--After construction reaches a specific point it seems like you can't attack SCV's doing the building any more, at least not with melee. Not sure if this is actually a thing though or if I was just mis-clicking
--Warp-in looks badass. God. Never get tired of doing it.
--Colossi are strong, so strong. They may not be Reavers but they're plenty.
--Banshees seem really tough to beat as Protoss. They harass the living crap out of your mineral line and do fine vs Stalkers. Didn't end up facing them as Zerg
--Lost a game to DTs because I didn't realize Overlords don't have detection any more :(
--Comsat looks gay.
--Psionic storm and EMP look great.
--Mutas seem to work just as well as in the original. Gotta love em. Didn't try stacking, though.
--Archons...eh, not sure if I like how they look.
--Colored psi-blades still in! Score! Colored pylons out makes me :(
Summary: Game feels just like Starcraft to me, seems just as fun. Granted, this subject isn't exactly my area of expertise, and I only had like 6 or 7 games, so I'm not even sure this is my final opinion.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Girls and Starcraft: The obvious topic
Girls are a joke in competitive gaming in general, and Starcraft in particular. I make no excuses. Between Tossgirl's mediocre career and the lack of any other notable female Starcraft players, the conclusion seems foregone. Hell, many top World of Warcraft guilds have banned girls from even joining their guilds at all (when you're not good enough for World of Warcraft, you know you suck at gaming). The question I have is: why is this the case? Is there anything that can be done to remedy the situation? Should anything be done?
A 2009 study by the Entertainment Software Association finds that approximately 40% of gamers are female, including 43-45% of online gamers. Despite this, female representation in the upper tiers of competitive gaming is virtually non-existent. Now, the simplest answer would be to simply say the girls are terrible at competitive gaming. While I will leave open the possibility that this could be the case, I don't think that the evidence necessarily points to that as the most reasonable conclusion, as there are several mitigating factors.
The biggest of these factors is the types of games which dominate competitive play: first-person shooters, real-time strategy, and sports. War and sports have traditionally been the province of men, and, whether through genetic disposition or through societal expectations, this has carried through to video games. None of the gametypes played competitively are particularly appealing to the majority of female gamers, which would directly contribute to low representation. Studies show that female gamers value strong plots, character development, open ended gameplay, and immersive game worlds (which would explain the relatively high representation of females in the MMO and action-adventure genres). Strong competitive gameplay ranked relatively low in comparison. Furthermore, girl gamers were much more likely to prefer casual games.
The second factor is the general lack of interest in women's competition because of inferior performance. Just look at real sports: men's basketball is magnitudes more popular than women's, and some sports don't even have female leagues (football, for example). Female Starcraft leagues have not existed since 2005, and for good reason--they didn't draw enough viewers because the level of competition was so low. The result of all this is that girls who might otherwise have found interest in playing professionally are discouraged by the lack of successful female pro gamers. After all, where is the motivation to become a pro Starcraft player when the peak of Tossgirl's career is winning a few rounds at the GomTV classic or placing third in ESWC? In a sense, it is a self-perpetuating problem.
Ironically, the small presence of girl gamers in competitive gaming, in my opinion, mostly worsens the problem. With each mediocre girl gamer that shows up, negative stereotypes are reinforced. However, they are coddled because everyone likes the idea of a girl who can keep up with the men (and because no one likes a sausagefest). In truth, as long as a female gamer can get by with sub-par performance, there is no incentive to keep reaching forward.
So what can we do about it? How do we increase female participation in competitive gaming without resorting to some kind of inappropriate affirmative action? My first move would be to institute female leagues. "Separate but equal" jokes aside, as long as these leagues are conducted with the same professionalism of the normal leagues, we can encourage aspiring female gamers with having to baby them. However, I think this is a temporary fix, a bandage, until we can integrate the leagues together. At some point the girl gamers are going to have to compete with the men, lest they be condemned to the fate of women's basketball (in 2008, WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers on ESPN and over 2.2 million on ABC for NBA games). Fortunately, in competitive gaming, girls suffer no measurable genetic disadvantage.
Or do they? Traditionally, women have been seen as more disposed to cooperate than men, who are theoretically more confrontational and competitive. Studies have generally proven inconclusive, but the possibility exists that women are, for the most part, simply not biologically predisposed to compete in this manner. I personally don't think so. Rather, I think that millenia of society's traditions have geared men and women into these respective roles. Women just might be less competitive, but, if it is simply a result of society's norms, this can be changed. However, I have no evidence to support this claim.
Now, the final question is: do we really need to do anything? Though competitive gaming is a male-dominated field, this tends not to be because of discrimination, unlike, for example, politics. Rather, female gamers tend to be excluded because they genuinely lack the skills and often the desire to compete. So, no harm, no foul, right? If girls don't want to play competitively, why bother changing anything? And, honestly, I think I can live with that line of reasoning. Gender equality is a touchy and controversial subject in many areas, but this need not be one of them. Going back once again to real-life sports, no one seems to mind that there is no female football or hockey league, or that the WNBA is a joke, least of all women. While it is probably inevitable that some girl somewhere dreams of being a pro gamer and likely will have her hopes crushed, I would wager money that situations like that are extremely rare.
A 2009 study by the Entertainment Software Association finds that approximately 40% of gamers are female, including 43-45% of online gamers. Despite this, female representation in the upper tiers of competitive gaming is virtually non-existent. Now, the simplest answer would be to simply say the girls are terrible at competitive gaming. While I will leave open the possibility that this could be the case, I don't think that the evidence necessarily points to that as the most reasonable conclusion, as there are several mitigating factors.
The biggest of these factors is the types of games which dominate competitive play: first-person shooters, real-time strategy, and sports. War and sports have traditionally been the province of men, and, whether through genetic disposition or through societal expectations, this has carried through to video games. None of the gametypes played competitively are particularly appealing to the majority of female gamers, which would directly contribute to low representation. Studies show that female gamers value strong plots, character development, open ended gameplay, and immersive game worlds (which would explain the relatively high representation of females in the MMO and action-adventure genres). Strong competitive gameplay ranked relatively low in comparison. Furthermore, girl gamers were much more likely to prefer casual games.
The second factor is the general lack of interest in women's competition because of inferior performance. Just look at real sports: men's basketball is magnitudes more popular than women's, and some sports don't even have female leagues (football, for example). Female Starcraft leagues have not existed since 2005, and for good reason--they didn't draw enough viewers because the level of competition was so low. The result of all this is that girls who might otherwise have found interest in playing professionally are discouraged by the lack of successful female pro gamers. After all, where is the motivation to become a pro Starcraft player when the peak of Tossgirl's career is winning a few rounds at the GomTV classic or placing third in ESWC? In a sense, it is a self-perpetuating problem.
Ironically, the small presence of girl gamers in competitive gaming, in my opinion, mostly worsens the problem. With each mediocre girl gamer that shows up, negative stereotypes are reinforced. However, they are coddled because everyone likes the idea of a girl who can keep up with the men (and because no one likes a sausagefest). In truth, as long as a female gamer can get by with sub-par performance, there is no incentive to keep reaching forward.
So what can we do about it? How do we increase female participation in competitive gaming without resorting to some kind of inappropriate affirmative action? My first move would be to institute female leagues. "Separate but equal" jokes aside, as long as these leagues are conducted with the same professionalism of the normal leagues, we can encourage aspiring female gamers with having to baby them. However, I think this is a temporary fix, a bandage, until we can integrate the leagues together. At some point the girl gamers are going to have to compete with the men, lest they be condemned to the fate of women's basketball (in 2008, WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers on ESPN and over 2.2 million on ABC for NBA games). Fortunately, in competitive gaming, girls suffer no measurable genetic disadvantage.
Or do they? Traditionally, women have been seen as more disposed to cooperate than men, who are theoretically more confrontational and competitive. Studies have generally proven inconclusive, but the possibility exists that women are, for the most part, simply not biologically predisposed to compete in this manner. I personally don't think so. Rather, I think that millenia of society's traditions have geared men and women into these respective roles. Women just might be less competitive, but, if it is simply a result of society's norms, this can be changed. However, I have no evidence to support this claim.
Now, the final question is: do we really need to do anything? Though competitive gaming is a male-dominated field, this tends not to be because of discrimination, unlike, for example, politics. Rather, female gamers tend to be excluded because they genuinely lack the skills and often the desire to compete. So, no harm, no foul, right? If girls don't want to play competitively, why bother changing anything? And, honestly, I think I can live with that line of reasoning. Gender equality is a touchy and controversial subject in many areas, but this need not be one of them. Going back once again to real-life sports, no one seems to mind that there is no female football or hockey league, or that the WNBA is a joke, least of all women. While it is probably inevitable that some girl somewhere dreams of being a pro gamer and likely will have her hopes crushed, I would wager money that situations like that are extremely rare.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
So, the beta--let the speculation begin,
Let's try my hand at a real post. Likely I will resign in shame after this attempt, in which case you will be spared any further exposure to my brain.
Obviously, there are a significant number of theories about the delay of beta--and Blizzard's accompanying silence--and just as many people who feel that they ought to share their thoughts about it through posts and blogs and Twitter or whatever. Now there's one more. First, let's tally up the facts about the delay:
--Obviously, this was unexpected. Blizzard is notorious for delays, but even they are not this bad.
--It is bad for business. Again, obvious--it puts more pressure on a game which already bears a lot of burden.
--It's a big problem. Blizzard's estimates, ever generous, were pushed back at least 6 months or more, meaning the less gracious fan estimates place SC2 at the end of 2010 at the very earliest.
So there's two main questions to ask. First...what exactly...is the problem? What kind of situation can be so dire that it ruins their plans for the beta so severely? I'm sure everyone has already figured out that it has to be something about this Battle.net 2.0. Realistically, barring some kind of fatal computer crash which wipes out the SC2 data, the game is theoretically ready to be beta tested, and likely has been for some months. We are still getting screenshots and I suppose a Battle Report, so obviously the game hasn't been deleted by the janitor or anything. It's pretty obvious that most of the work remaining to be done is polishing the graphics, fine-tuning the balance and units, and, of course, single-player. None of these things could possibly delay the release of the beta this badly.
Furthermore, all those same reasons that make those things unlikely to delay beta point straight to Battle.net 2.0 as the culprit. It is likely vital to their plans for beta. Beta is most likely going to be both distributed and played over Battle.net, so any issues would need to be ironed out. Furthermore, this whole thing feels like a recent development. I mean, they announced it, what, at Blizzcon? They probably didn't start working on it until relatively recently, which makes it quite possible that a catastrophic and unforeseen bug could arise. Personally, I think it is something either extremely serious or extremely embarrassing. Why? That gets into the second question, which is:
Why the bizarre silence from Blizzard? We're used to their stony minimize-contact policy, but who in their right mind reacts to large-scale delays with even more silence? I didn't think it was possible to post less than they already did, but they sure proved me wrong. Lots of weird theories pop up about the delay: Blizzard wants to milk WoW players who would be switching to SC2, WoW is dying and they want to...something, bla bla bla new WoW expansion. Actually, most of these theories relate to WoW, I guess, or more generally to a sense that Blizzard is consumed by corporate greed or something and is not the company it used to be. Now, the obvious PR solution is to come out and say, "Hey, that's wrong"--bonus points for offering some kind of explanation. The only reason I can think of that they won't do that is if they feel they have to keep this private for some reason, or if they are too proud to admit mistakes. Now, I don't think the latter is true because it just doesn't make sense, neither business nor common. So I must conclude that it is something senstive...which is weird, because I can't really think of anything that falls into that category. The only thing I could really think of is that maybe Blizzard was very overambitious in their plans announced at Blizzcon, only to discover that it would take much longer to implement than they had thought. That seems the most likely to me, with the only issue being that it doesn't seem like a secret worth keeping.
The whole weirdness of the situation is probably where the conspiracy-type theories come from. Blizzard's actions make no sense. The simple fact that there are people complaining about it--not just the delay, but also the silence--means that it is a bad business decision to stonewall like this. Now, I don't think that this is some kind of nefarious money-grabbing plot by Blizzard or their evil Activision overlords. The very things that you don't like about them make them sharp about avoiding delays which squander time, money, and fan goodwill. They may not be dedicated to producing the best game, but they sure are dedicated to not losing money, which is why I will bet you that they want this delay over just as badly as we do--maybe more, since they have millions of dollars riding on the line.
"Okay, Katie," you ask, "but I already knew all this stuff. Tell me you didn't just waste my time with several minutes of inane chatter."
I got news for you. I just wasted your time with several minutes of inane chatter. You want real information and insight? Go read Wikipedia or something.
Oh, and can anyone help me figure out how to do indents on this thing?
Obviously, there are a significant number of theories about the delay of beta--and Blizzard's accompanying silence--and just as many people who feel that they ought to share their thoughts about it through posts and blogs and Twitter or whatever. Now there's one more. First, let's tally up the facts about the delay:
--Obviously, this was unexpected. Blizzard is notorious for delays, but even they are not this bad.
--It is bad for business. Again, obvious--it puts more pressure on a game which already bears a lot of burden.
--It's a big problem. Blizzard's estimates, ever generous, were pushed back at least 6 months or more, meaning the less gracious fan estimates place SC2 at the end of 2010 at the very earliest.
So there's two main questions to ask. First...what exactly...is the problem? What kind of situation can be so dire that it ruins their plans for the beta so severely? I'm sure everyone has already figured out that it has to be something about this Battle.net 2.0. Realistically, barring some kind of fatal computer crash which wipes out the SC2 data, the game is theoretically ready to be beta tested, and likely has been for some months. We are still getting screenshots and I suppose a Battle Report, so obviously the game hasn't been deleted by the janitor or anything. It's pretty obvious that most of the work remaining to be done is polishing the graphics, fine-tuning the balance and units, and, of course, single-player. None of these things could possibly delay the release of the beta this badly.
Furthermore, all those same reasons that make those things unlikely to delay beta point straight to Battle.net 2.0 as the culprit. It is likely vital to their plans for beta. Beta is most likely going to be both distributed and played over Battle.net, so any issues would need to be ironed out. Furthermore, this whole thing feels like a recent development. I mean, they announced it, what, at Blizzcon? They probably didn't start working on it until relatively recently, which makes it quite possible that a catastrophic and unforeseen bug could arise. Personally, I think it is something either extremely serious or extremely embarrassing. Why? That gets into the second question, which is:
Why the bizarre silence from Blizzard? We're used to their stony minimize-contact policy, but who in their right mind reacts to large-scale delays with even more silence? I didn't think it was possible to post less than they already did, but they sure proved me wrong. Lots of weird theories pop up about the delay: Blizzard wants to milk WoW players who would be switching to SC2, WoW is dying and they want to...something, bla bla bla new WoW expansion. Actually, most of these theories relate to WoW, I guess, or more generally to a sense that Blizzard is consumed by corporate greed or something and is not the company it used to be. Now, the obvious PR solution is to come out and say, "Hey, that's wrong"--bonus points for offering some kind of explanation. The only reason I can think of that they won't do that is if they feel they have to keep this private for some reason, or if they are too proud to admit mistakes. Now, I don't think the latter is true because it just doesn't make sense, neither business nor common. So I must conclude that it is something senstive...which is weird, because I can't really think of anything that falls into that category. The only thing I could really think of is that maybe Blizzard was very overambitious in their plans announced at Blizzcon, only to discover that it would take much longer to implement than they had thought. That seems the most likely to me, with the only issue being that it doesn't seem like a secret worth keeping.
The whole weirdness of the situation is probably where the conspiracy-type theories come from. Blizzard's actions make no sense. The simple fact that there are people complaining about it--not just the delay, but also the silence--means that it is a bad business decision to stonewall like this. Now, I don't think that this is some kind of nefarious money-grabbing plot by Blizzard or their evil Activision overlords. The very things that you don't like about them make them sharp about avoiding delays which squander time, money, and fan goodwill. They may not be dedicated to producing the best game, but they sure are dedicated to not losing money, which is why I will bet you that they want this delay over just as badly as we do--maybe more, since they have millions of dollars riding on the line.
"Okay, Katie," you ask, "but I already knew all this stuff. Tell me you didn't just waste my time with several minutes of inane chatter."
I got news for you. I just wasted your time with several minutes of inane chatter. You want real information and insight? Go read Wikipedia or something.
Oh, and can anyone help me figure out how to do indents on this thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
