WTH Blizzard, stop jerking our chain...

Status
Not open for further replies.
So it looks like Raynor and Mengsk get their original voice actors back... but Kerrigan won't... that's so damned weak!

http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/428-jun ... nt-wrap-up

First up, we have new information on the status of the StarCraft II voice actors. JoyStiq reported that Jim Raynor and Arcturus Mengsk will have their original voice actors return in StarCraft II. Though Blizzplanet has confirmed that Robert Clotworthy has indeed reprised his role, Glynnis Talken Campbell confirmed to us that she will not:

\"\"As for Kerrigan, I think things are pretty set in stone. I got a very definitive call from the new audio director when they made the decision not to use me, saying they wanted something different. I can't imagine them changing their minds now unless there's a shakeup in Blizzard's corporate world. I have to say I'm surprised (and pleased) that Robert has been brought back--the fans should be delighted to hear that! If nothing else, all the articles and comments have been flattering, and I thank you for forwarding the links. It's been an honor to serve as your Queen of Blades...\"\"


StarCraft: Legacy would like to congratule Robert Clotworthy on his return to the StarCraft universe! Indeed, it appears that Blizzard has listened to the voices of the fans in this matter. Yet for one reason or another, it seems that Blizzard is adamant on their decision to not recast Glynnis Campbell.

They've been flip-flopping on this since the beginning... just bring all the available voices back... it's the right, in continuity thing to do.
 
Perhaps the storyline calls for the continued evolution of Kerrigan, and they feel a different voice best suits her now.

Or maybe Campbell wanted too much money? Who the hell knows.
 
Corporate bullcrap is going to slowly kill blizzard.

I'm still pissed about the fact that they won't be supporting LAN play and there's the ever looming rumor of profitizing battlenet.
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........................
 
S

Selgeron

also...

Broodwars spoiler

[spoiler:119zxtw8]didn't mengsk get killed...?[/spoiler:119zxtw8]
 
Selgeron said:
also...

Broodwars spoiler

[spoiler:3a5jm9kl]didn't mengsk get killed...?[/spoiler:3a5jm9kl]
I never played SC, but lemme guess:

[spoiler:3a5jm9kl]He got better[/spoiler:3a5jm9kl]
 
Selgeron said:
also...

Broodwars spoiler

[spoiler:1blrhh5g]didn't mengsk get killed...?[/spoiler:1blrhh5g]
[spoiler:1blrhh5g]No. Kerrigan bashed his fleet to hell, and I believe the epilogue reads that he went off to 'lick his wounds'. But he escaped death, and Kerrigan stayed on Char to rule her brood and bide her time.[/spoiler:1blrhh5g]

Also, I will miss the voice of Kerrigan. Fave character voice by far.
 
L

Le Quack

I can't wait to see how old and Clint Eastwoody Jim Raynor sounds.
 
Selgeron said:
also...

Broodwars spoiler

[spoiler:23h7t6qm]didn't mengsk get killed...?[/spoiler:23h7t6qm]

[spoiler:23h7t6qm]You're thinking of the General, whose name escapes me. Edmonton?[/spoiler:23h7t6qm]
 
G

Gkbur

[spoiler:3lim90am]Kerrigan killed Edmund Duke and Fenix in SC:BW[/spoiler:3lim90am]

Also, the game's like 11 years old, why are we spoilering?
 
Gkbur said:
[spoiler:wz93glu8]Kerrigan killed Edmund Duke and Fenix in SC:BW[/spoiler:wz93glu8]

Also, the game's like 11 years old, why are we spoilering?
[spoiler:wz93glu8]Aeris Dies
King Kong Dies
Vader is Luke's Father[/spoiler:wz93glu8]
 
G

Gkbur

Oh? [spoiler:2ox1vhio]Spock dies[/spoiler:2ox1vhio]

But [spoiler:2ox1vhio]He gets better[/spoiler:2ox1vhio]
 
It's funny - last time I said that Blizzard have smelled money and are now going to want more, I got slammed on this very forum :p . Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years? Diablo II and that's it. Starcraft II has shown to make nearly no advances technically - it's basically the same game with improved graphics, a new story and a different balance. Diablo III looks to be not much different either except in a bad way. Well, I dunno. I don't really consider Blizzard as a developer I look out for.
 
Icarus said:
It's funny - last time I said that Blizzard have smelled money and are now going to want more, I got slammed on this very forum :p . Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years? Diablo II and that's it. Starcraft II has shown to make nearly no advances technically - it's basically the same game with improved graphics, a new story and a different balance. Diablo III looks to be not much different either except in a bad way. Well, I dunno. I don't really consider Blizzard as a developer I look out for.
Really? D3 looks like D2 with new graphics? No potions (using health globes), barbarians use something they are calling Rage orbs, no insane rarities like in D2, no immunities like D2, and the use of boss special attacks (like the one previewed in the video of the barbarian being picked up and chewed on).

Not seeing the same game thing.
 
Krisken said:
Icarus said:
It's funny - last time I said that Blizzard have smelled money and are now going to want more, I got slammed on this very forum :p . Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years? Diablo II and that's it. Starcraft II has shown to make nearly no advances technically - it's basically the same game with improved graphics, a new story and a different balance. Diablo III looks to be not much different either except in a bad way. Well, I dunno. I don't really consider Blizzard as a developer I look out for.
Really? D3 looks like D2 with new graphics? No potions (using health globes), barbarians use something they are calling Rage orbs, no insane rarities like in D2, no immunities like D2, and the use of boss special attacks (like the one previewed in the video of the barbarian being picked up and chewed on).

Not seeing the same game thing.
"except in a bad way" *points* But seriously, big fucking deal. You really consider those small changes as making it into a whole new game? They're TWEAKS. A mod made in a single day could have changed Diablo II to do all that except for the special boss attacks which are hardly that big a deal either.
 
Icarus said:
A mod made in a single day could have changed Diablo II to do all that except for the special boss attacks which are hardly that big a deal either.
Ok, make that mod, so that we can all play diablo 3.


Go on... I'll wait.


Oh wait,
Icarus said:
serious gamers
Oh, you're one of -them-. Well then, nevermind.
 
Icarus said:
Krisken said:
Icarus said:
It's funny - last time I said that Blizzard have smelled money and are now going to want more, I got slammed on this very forum :p . Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years? Diablo II and that's it. Starcraft II has shown to make nearly no advances technically - it's basically the same game with improved graphics, a new story and a different balance. Diablo III looks to be not much different either except in a bad way. Well, I dunno. I don't really consider Blizzard as a developer I look out for.
Really? D3 looks like D2 with new graphics? No potions (using health globes), barbarians use something they are calling Rage orbs, no insane rarities like in D2, no immunities like D2, and the use of boss special attacks (like the one previewed in the video of the barbarian being picked up and chewed on).

Not seeing the same game thing.
"except in a bad way" *points* But seriously, big smurfing deal. You really consider those small changes as making it into a whole new game? They're TWEAKS. A mod made in a single day could have changed Diablo II to do all that except for the special boss attacks which are hardly that big a deal either.
I still don't understand your complaint. it's a different game because it has different skills, different way of doing things, and yet in spite of this keeps the flavor of the series. It's a series because of the similarities.

You don't seem to want Diablo 3. You want a different game altogether.
 
Krisken said:
no insane rarities like in D2, no immunities like D2
Well look who's never played before 1.10 or at least the expansion.


Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years?
As someone who's been randomly watching the Blizz forums for the past 10 years or so, i can say that the complaints and stupidity have always been constant... here's a good article on it: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Starcr ... S_Business ([strike:kofogkaa]SFW atm[/strike:kofogkaa], NSFW - yeah, checked again and it's not any more... figures)
 
@Li3n said:
Krisken said:
no insane rarities like in D2, no immunities like D2
Well look who's never played before 1.10 or at least the expansion.


Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years?
As someone who's been randomly watching the Blizz forums for the past 10 years or so, i can say that the complaints and stupidity have always been constant... here's a good article on it: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Starcr ... S_Business (SFW atm, just don;t click on any links...)
Bzzzzt! Sorry, but I've been playing since it came out. Hell, I played Diablo on the Playstation.
 
Krisken said:
Bzzzzt! Sorry, but I've been playing since it came out. Hell, I played Diablo on the Playstation.
Then you should probably prove it next time by not talking BS... k, 10x.
 
@Li3n said:
Krisken said:
Bzzzzt! Sorry, but I've been playing since it came out. *, I played Diablo on the Playstation.
Then you should probably prove it next time by not talking BS... k, 10x.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess since I'm still playing the game and the game has been played in this fashion for the last 5 years, I base my observations on that. Since over half the time the game has been out has been played in this fashion, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare it in this way.

More fun to be snide, though, isn't it?
 
Krisken said:
You don't seem to want Diablo 3. You want a different game altogether.
What I wanted:

- a nice cool gothic game
-- what we got: a WoW bastard child with blue and green hues everywhere and semi-cartoon textures

- the same level of awesome music for Diablo 3.
-- what we got: music that feels more WoW than Diablo. Several upbeat songs, too orchestral, not enough dark and moody or gothic

- deeper combat - after all, Diablo II was a fleshed out Diablo 1 and I wanted a fleshed out DIablo II
-- what we got: a simplified Diablo II, with bits of Wow tagged on.

Seriously, this is Diablo II getting raped by the big brother WoW and this unloved bastard child is Diablo III. Diablo II's music still gives me chills - THAT is how amazing it is - but I listened to Diablo III's music a lot and it does nothing to me.
 
C

Chazwozel

Icarus said:
It's funny - last time I said that Blizzard have smelled money and are now going to want more, I got slammed on this very forum :p . Blizzard IS losing popularity with the more serious gamers - what games have they release for them in the past 10 years? Diablo II and that's it. Starcraft II has shown to make nearly no advances technically - it's basically the same game with improved graphics, a new story and a different balance. Diablo III looks to be not much different either except in a bad way. Well, I dunno. I don't really consider Blizzard as a developer I look out for.

Hide behind me, I'll protect you from the rapid idiot Blizzard fanbois.
 
C

Chazwozel

Krisken said:
:facepalm: Ugh, whatever. I give up. This is why I don't post on Blizzard forums.
I'll agree with you that he's jumping the gun as far as both StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 aren't released so we can't make a judgment on them. As far as Blizzard being a lazy, money-grubbing developer, he's spot on. They're main franchises both completely rip off Games Workshop, not to mention the lore is written out like it's by a soap opera writer on heroin. There are so many plot loops and holes due to the million stories going on in WoW that it boggles the mind.
 
Icarus said:
Krisken said:
- deeper combat - after all, Diablo II was a fleshed out Diablo 1 and I wanted a fleshed out DIablo II
-- what we got: a simplified Diablo II, with bits of Wow tagged on.
No, what Diablo 2 had was an over complicated mess for combat. It was very beginner inaccessible and you really had to know what you were doing if you wanted to get the most out of it, and even then things didn't always go smoothly. In short, it was a game designed for the old school of gaming, where challenge was everything and anyone who couldn't cut it was shown the door. There is nothing WRONG with this style of gaming... but it's dying out as more and more companies realize that the "hardcore fanbase" is going to buy whatever they put out.

This is why Diablo is changing (other than the fact that the original design team has since left the company and failed at making their own games): Blizzard wants to attract more casual gamers. In order to attract casual gamers, you need to keep things simple. Characters need to be bright and colorful to stand out against enemies to help new school players manage the action. Complicated ability trees need to be broken down into their bare essentials. In short... everything needs to be made simple to understand because the new players coming in would never be able to compete against the older generation without the help.

If your not willing to accept that gaming is changing, there's the door. Blizzard doesn't need you around and they don't owe you a god damn thing for all the hours of fun THEY gave you. The new generation of gamers aren't so picky and their money is just as green as yours.

Chazwozel said:
They're main franchises both completely rip off Games Workshop.
No... both franchises were both originally intended to BE Games Workshop franchise titles, but the deals fell through for both games. So Blizzard was forced to rework the content into something more original so they wouldn't have to dump the work they had put into the titles. In short, it's Games Workshop's fault that some of the best selling games of all time don't have anything to do with their franchises, not Blizzard.
 
C

Chazwozel

AshburnerX said:
Icarus said:
Krisken said:
- deeper combat - after all, Diablo II was a fleshed out Diablo 1 and I wanted a fleshed out DIablo II
-- what we got: a simplified Diablo II, with bits of Wow tagged on.
No, what Diablo 2 had was an over complicated mess for combat. It was very beginner inaccessible and you really had to know what you were doing if you wanted to get the most out of it, and even then things didn't always go smoothly. In short, it was a game designed for the old school of gaming, where challenge was everything and anyone who couldn't cut it was shown the door. There is nothing WRONG with this style of gaming... but it's dying out as more and more companies realize that the "hardcore fanbase" is going to buy whatever they put out.

This is why Diablo is changing (other than the fact that the original design team has since left the company and failed at making their own games): Blizzard wants to attract more casual gamers. In order to attract casual gamers, you need to keep things simple. Characters need to be bright and colorful to stand out against enemies to help new school players manage the action. Complicated ability trees need to be broken down into their bare essentials. In short... everything needs to be made simple to understand because the new players coming in would never be able to compete against the older generation without the help.

If your not willing to accept that gaming is changing, there's the door. Blizzard doesn't need you around and they don't owe you a god damn thing for all the hours of fun THEY gave you. The new generation of gamers aren't so picky and their money is just as green as yours.

Chazwozel said:
They're main franchises both completely rip off Games Workshop.
No... both franchises were both originally intended to BE Games Workshop franchise titles, but the deals fell through for both games. So Blizzard was forced to "rework" the content into something more original so they wouldn't have to dump the work they had put into the titles. In short, it's Games Workshop's fault that some of the best selling games of all time don't have anything to do with their franchises, not Blizzard.
Rework the content to be almost a knockoff of Warhammer and Warhammer 3000. Gotcha.

Time to get back to writing my original work: Lord of the Blings.
 
Chazwozel said:
AshburnerX said:
Chazwozel said:
They're main franchises both completely rip off Games Workshop.
No... both franchises were both originally intended to BE Games Workshop franchise titles, but the deals fell through for both games. So Blizzard was forced to "rework" the content into something more original so they wouldn't have to dump the work they had put into the titles. In short, it's Games Workshop's fault that some of the best selling games of all time don't have anything to do with their franchises, not Blizzard.
Rework the content to be almost a knockoff of Warhammer and Warhammer 3000. Gotcha.

Time to get back to writing my original work: Lord of the Blings.
And yet which has the more popular, more recognizable characters, lore, and games? You call it a knock off, I call it a distillation.

And MadTV actually already did a Lord of the Bling :tongue:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0bkiji8b4:1nujk7h6][/youtube:1nujk7h6]
 
C

Chazwozel

AshburnerX said:
And yet which has the more popular, more recognizable characters, lore, and games? You call it a knock off, I call it a distillation.
That's because the mainstream Blizzard fan is an idiot. Transformers 2 got 400 million dollars opening night. Quality does not equal quantity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top