Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) Finished?

Sander said:
For instance, Blizzard bet all their money on World of Warcraft, had that tanked, they would've lost a shitload of money.
Blizz made big investments, but from what i hear it was far from betting "all their money".

anyhow, they scored & are now probably the richest dev in the world? too bad their content & service suck harder than a black hole though... (i ought to know, i was the officer that always contacted the GM's when things fubar'ed)
Roshambo said:
Heh...given their expansion, they're possibly going to eat a lot of the equipment investments if their IDIOTIC plans to have both sides have the realm-distinctive classes on both sides, as some kind of population balancing "fix", goes through. Not too many players are happy about it, and if the Outlands is the same shitty raid treadmill as the rest of the game, many of the realms will fall.
i doubt there will be any change Rosh. some new useless features, some new hardly relevant skills, some new mounts, some new raiding content. but in the end, what chances? not a whole lot...

the game is still very shallow. for me it was about discovery & friends. the discovery part went well, since my guild was always in top 10 guilds to clear the instance worldwide. but that's hardly enough once you realise that as a top endgame guild you do nothing but repeat the same crap over & over again. and in the rare occasion that they do add something really new, you end up betatesting it for a week (sometimes almost a month even) before they work out the endless amount of bugs they churn out due to poor QA.
so what's left then? friends? if you play a game for hanging with friends, you're better off grabbing a beer (or chatting on irc if they're not closeby).
 
Per, Wasteland is an aged game, and is like wine. And like wine, you need to grow up to appreciate it.

Fallout, being a game with graphics AND text, is more appealing to a "OMorrowindG" gamer, whereas Wasteland, with it's clumsy interface and simple graphics may just throw the fresh convert away.

Besides, given the attention span of today's developers, they propably can't even remember Fallout, much less Wasteland.
 
i loved Wasteland, but i'm pretty sure if i played it now, my eyes would hurt after an hours. i doubt i'd be able to finish it now. (it'd be even harder than back then with the bugs)
 
Gamespot has a news thing about publishers' and developers' reaction to the change in E3. The only interesting answer was from Ken Levine:

Like most things, it's probably good for the big boys and probably bad for the little guys. If you've got a bunch of games to show, you can host a giant event, fly in journalists, give them good food, have the Spice Girls reunite, etc., and spread all those costs across all those big games. If you're a small publisher with just a couple of titles, well, then you're kind of hosed.

I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. Some of the biggest games at E3 had very low-key presentations. We were fortunate enough this year to have a great response to BioShock, and we were just showing it off in a tiny little room on a medium-sized television. I'm sure that didn't make some of the big guys spending zillions of dollars on the same show floor very happy. I'm sure there are big players wondering, "Why bother? We'll just do our own thing where there's no competition."

I think the biggest loser is the "universal awareness of the games biz" in the sense that there's no longer a single event for the mainstream press to wrap their head around. It was sort of like an annual holiday where the "Live at Five" anchor-bots talked about the game industry for five minutes. I always thought that was good for a laugh.

Full article here.
 
Anyone notice they are calling the new E3 the "E3Expo?"

I see the need to distance the new E3 from the old with a new name, but couldn't they take the meaning of 'E3' into account when doing so? I also wonder if anyone will start calling it E4.
 
Back
Top