Allen Adham resigns from Blizzard

http://www.worldofwar.net

God damit Vivendi.

Systematically reducing the premiere PC developer to scraps will surely inch that final nail closer to doom.

Most of these guys could have left a long time ago but stayed because they loved what they do. If circumstances are that Blizzard is no longer a place where people love what they do, the gamers are the ones that lose, and lose big time.

Is it me or everybody seems to be resigning left and right? What is going on...

Yeah, this just hit gameindustry.biz too. I wonder what VU is up to. Not like you can replace these people-they are the backbone of a great game development house.

Now they will all set up shop somewhere else, and Blizzard will end up getting run into the ground. Of course, not before some permanent damage is done to the brands all of Blizzards games (think what might happen if they release diablo III the way eidos released the last tomb raider).

Time to start hoarding copies/making backup disks of all your favorites boys and girls. The times they are a changin''.

Blizzard died in aura factor after Diablo 2, Starcraft was the embers of what was a great crew.

They then went on to the art of the ""Amiga Syndrome"", where they pushing out endless repeats of the same game. Different graphics table, new game name, and maybe a new character type and customers purchased.

I don''t have much hope for WoW being the ultimate game people are hoping, I think it will definately sell well.

.

Warcraft 3 wasn''t really a Starcraft clone. The RPG stuff really changed the game. Personally I consider Warcraft 3 to still be one of the greats they have done. Time will tell if it''s their last I guess.

I agree with Pyro, as I have spent more time in Warcraft 3 than any other Blizzard game, and have found that adding the heroes to the mix was a drastic change for the better in the RTS genre. I just wish Blizzard would do something original one of these years, instead of another sequal, or a game in the same world as their other games. I don''t think VU is going to allow that to happen, as all their established franchises have reached ""cash cow"" status. They just have to say the words Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft and they can instantly have thousands of pre-orders.

From a business standpoint, it doesn''t make sense any longer to innovate, since that''s not what people appear to want. What people, and by that I mean forum jockeys, gamers, pundits, and stock analysts all seem to want is ""the same thing, only bigger and better"".

So, you get Unreal Tournament 2004, Doom III, Half-Life 2, Warcraft and Starcraft spinoffs, etc. Innovation = risk, and big companies aren''t about risk, unless you have a huge pile of cash to sit on, and then you have a cushion to balance out revenue shortfalls over the long term.

We aren''t going to see anything new anytime soon, unless some upstart developer with nothing to prove and endless ambition gets out there and releases something sexy.

Personally I consider Warcraft 3 to still be one of the greats they have done.

That''s funny, because I would completely disagree. Well, maybe it''s not funny, but the point is I still disagree. I was really disappointed in Warcraft 3, it felt a bit directionless, like it had thought briefly about being something genuinely innovative and suddenly said ''aw, screw it, I''ll just be an RTS after all''. The hero concept never felt fun but then again I haven''t enjoyed many RTS games in a while. In fact, the only one I can put up with these days is Rise of Nations, so take from that what you will.

That said, I think the beauty of Blizzard over the past has been their dedication to polishing and honing the playabilitiy of games. I may not have liked WC3, but I certainly can''t deny that it was a beautifully crafted piece of multiplayer software. I don''t think Blizzard has ever really been about changing the face of gaming. What they''ve always done is take the pieces already out there, and make them shine.

That may be why I''m still looking forward to World of Warcraft. I don''t expect them to change the MMO genre dramatically, I just expect them to be the first company that refined the playstyle into something fun.

Ok, heroes are a great addition to RTS. But, of course, Blizzard didnt originate this idea. And the interesting thing is, in WC3, they seem to have an identity crisis on how powerful Blizzard had intended them to be. Ok, but thats WC3. I think Blizzard figured out the role they wanted heroes to play in the Frozen Throne expansion. The new ones added seemed much more refined. And the single player missions seemed to be catered to the special skillsets of the hero unit being profiled.

I enjoyed WC3 and had a lot of fun with the customizing of it. So I guess you could say the glass is half empty if you consider paying $100 for a game and a half. You could also look at it as half full by thinking that you played the expansion before the first edition and ended up even.

Ok, heroes are a great addition to RTS. But, of course, Blizzard didnt originate this idea.

Who did? The first game I remember with hero units is Warcraft 2. I may have been giving credit where it wasn''t due.

Didn''t Warlords: Battlecry do it first? Or was it done even earlier?

"Elysium" wrote:

I was really disappointed in Warcraft 3, it felt a bit directionless, like it had thought briefly about being something genuinely innovative and suddenly said ''aw, screw it, I''ll just be an RTS after all''. ... I don''t think Blizzard has ever really been about changing the face of gaming. What they''ve always done is take the pieces already out there, and make them shine.

So you''re saying you''re dissapointed because Blizzard didn''t innovate with Warcraft 3, yet admit they are never really innovative? Not that I disagree, Blizzard has never been revolutionary, but that''s not what they do. They take existing gameplay ideas and apply them in a consistently polished and fun way. They make games like the only purpose of the game is to get you to have fun. It''s not about being innovative, or edgy, or groundbreaking, it''s about making sure every square inch of the game is fun. To me it''s not what they do but how they do it, which they nailed in Warcraft 3.

If these guys all go set up shop somewhere else, as mateo says, I see this as a good thing. Competition can be a good thing. Having to start a new company, or project, will really get their creative juices flowing. They''ll have something to prove, rather than just moving on to their next Warcraft/Diablo/Starcraft clone.

Having to start a new company, or project, will really get their creative juices flowing. They''ll have something to prove, rather than just moving on to their next Warcraft/Diablo/Starcraft clone.

Either that, or they''ll put out their ""new"" version of xCraft/Diablo with a big sticker on the box that says, ""From the folks that brought you xCraft and Diablo!!""...

Hoping this isn''t a premonition of a Black Isle repeat . . . VU is nearly as clueless as Interplay.

Warlords Battlecry was the first (that I know of) to use RPG style hero units in a RTS game. By this I mean units that gain experience, level up, and have customizable options at level up. Warlords Battlecry heroes had classes, learned spells and abilties, increased stats, equipped items, etc. Warcraft 3 pretty blatantly ripped this idea off and tried to present it as original, but Warlords did it better.

That said, WC3 was still a good game. I didn''t like it at first, due largely to its lack of innovation or anything truly new, but I kept playing because I had to get my money''s worth out of it. Eventually my perception changed, and I just started enjoying the game for what it was -- a polished and solid 2D RTS with 3D graphics, not a revolutionary new RTS experience. WC3 didn''t do anything all that new, but probably represents the evolutionary pinnacle of the traditional RTS genre.

Also, the Frozen Throne campaigns were better, so if you found the WC3 campaigns a little blase, try the Frozen Throne expansion. The new heroes alone are worth it.

I seem to recall War of the Lance having hero units. It came out in ''89, pretty damn cool, too.

But wasn''t that a war game, not an RTS? It sounded like turn based strategy to me . . .