There's a sense of emptiness to Blizzard's games that nags at me

[SolVanderlyn]

First of all, I greatly enjoy Blizzard games. For the most part.

Something has always bugged me about most of them, though. The story - which usually has the skeletal structure of greatness and is extremely interesting on paper - is shallow coating for whatever game is there. The character design is appealing, but also very in your face and bombastic, like it's meant to appeal to the masses and not hold any depth or artistic merit. And the gameplay - it's not an experience so much as it is a mindless grind, at least after a while.

Diablo, Overwatch, World of Warcraft - in each and every one of these games you find yourself doing the same things over and over again, to fulfill an endless loop of gameplay to improve yourself to... do it again. This wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't seem like the crux of each game is designed specifically around this element of an endless New Game+ mindset. The initial run is the trial run. The first time is meant to prepare you for the second, third, seventy-seventh and hundreth time. Why? Why are we doing any of this?

I suppose it comes from me greatly valuing "the experience" of a game, but I can usually enjoy a gameplay focused game for what it is. It's the fact that there's nothing to these games but an endless, surface-level improvement of oneself, in a way that doesn't feel nearly as self-satisfying as mastering a game like Sekiro, that gets me.

And maybe the reason it gets me is that when Blizzard does it right, they do it right. I love the campaign in Warcraft III. That was good storytelling, integration of gameplay into an overall experience, and left a lasting impression in addition to being a blast to actually play. I think Wings of Liberty in Starcraft II was above average as well. And back in Brood War? That was an excellent experience, too.

Beneath the mindless loop of gameplay at WoW's endgame, there's some great lore buried underneath there. I still love it. But the dialogue is sometimes so dumb that it instantly reminds you - it breaks the veil - they didn't really care about immersing you in this world. This is a zone created to be a zone, a dungeon created to be a dungeon, a boss that exists because he is supposed to. For an MMO, a game that is meant to immerse you in another world, this is a jarring experience.

I am not explaining this as accurately as I would like to at all, but does anyone get what I mean? Does anyone else feel a bit like this, too? There's something about a lot of Blizzard's games that leaves me not all the way satisfied after playing them.

 

[Syril]

Yeah, like Diablo 1 and 2 were really good about making their stories feel like more than the sum of their parts, but with 3 it felt like they totally bought into to the oft repeated sentiment that no one cared about story in Diablo and just made a bunch of big bombastic moments.

 

[skeezx]

they could surely do better (i don't play FFXIV but supposedly it really shines in this regard). but there's only so much to immerse you away from the reality of being on a hamster wheel. i poured like 100+ hrs into Destiny and knew fuck all what was going on the whole time. same with Division though to a lesser extent with the real world setting grounding it somewhat. and i'm mostly ok with it, it's just the type of games they are

 

[QuixoticNeutral]

This is why Diablo has always been Blizzard's least interesting IP to me, and why, over my years on and off in WoW, I fell out of anything that involved reputation grinds. I don't much approve of how that has become emblematic of the studio. To me, Blizzard will always be the industry's premier RTS house, and a big part of that is that there is a hard separation between the pleasure of the core gameplay and the external frills that keep people grinding.

I get that from Heroes of the Storm despite the presence of all the skins and loot boxes nobody cares about or buys; the game systems and map dynamics are unusually interesting. I got that from Hearthstone in Arena (but not from Constructed), as its accomplishments as a strategy game are way ahead of its mindlessness as a collection/netdecking game. I got that from more skill-based aspects of WoW like positional fights in raids that you couldn't simply out-gear and beat down with superior numbers, and I always thought those incredible boss designs would be more interesting in a context where they were totally gear-independent. And it's also why I maintain to this day that SC2 is the best game Blizzard has ever turned out. Whenever I play it—for ladder, co-op, campaign, or anything else—it's because I want to try new things or master existing skills, and not because the gameplay is some kind of "work" towards an external reward or result.

Diablo-like grinds don't represent the Blizzard experience for me, and it's unfortunate that they do for so many people to the point of taking over. Diablo can be fun, but its idea of endgame just isn't terribly interesting because the pleasures are no longer intrinsic and don't scale with the player getting better and smarter. (Don't know Overwatch deeply enough to speak to it.)

So the answer to the emptiness is just to play the right Blizzard games, or in the right modes. RTS is their prestige genre, but they don't seem to know it themselves, and it's clear to me that era has passed. As a SC1/WC3-era Blizzard oldbie, I had the easiest time passing on their offerings this BlizzCon for political reasons.

 

[Sensei]

they make service games and part of that comes with a bit of impermanence. character-wise, nobody in the story is actually in danger. I dont play WoW but I see you guys talking about that Sylvan character a lot and how she sucks or whatever, but shes not going to actually ever die for real. Theres not going to be a real punishment for that character that persists forever and is in line with whatever bad thing shes done. The consequences are temporary

Overwatch is a hero shooter with a competitive element so the story is NEVER going to have a drastic effect on the gameplay. That would negatively effect the balance, and they would be silly to do so. Nobody wants a competitive shooter changed at the whims of Michael Chu lol

 

[sredgrin]

they make service games and part of that comes with a bit of impermanence. character-wise, nobody in the story is actually in danger. I dont play WoW but I see you guys talking about that Sylvan character a lot and how she sucks or whatever, but shes not going to actually ever die for real. Theres not going to be a real punishment for that character that persists forever and is in line with whatever bad thing shes done. The consequences are temporary

Overwatch is a hero shooter with a competitive element so the story is NEVER going to have a drastic effect on the gameplay. That would negatively effect the balance, and they would be silly to do so. Nobody wants a competitive shooter changed at the whims of Michael Chu lol

Click to shrink...

Characters die or exit all the time in Warcraft. One of the common complaints about Sylvanas is that she's repeating a story that did just that, killed a prominent former Warchief, not that she won't get what's coming to her.

 

[Valiant]

I dont like their gameplay loop for most of their games.

But with Overwatch it works because it's not just about getting better against some NPCs... it's about getting better against other human players.

 

[RedSparrows]

WoW Classic is letting me relive my favourite game world. So they can do great things.

 

[Finaj]

Storytelling has always been Blizzard's weakest department. The quality of the stories rarely seem to change even if the entire writing team is replaced. Christie Golden has resulted in much better dialogue in WoW, but it's hard to tell what influence (if any) she has over the overarching narrative.

Blizzard also got Cyberpunk 2077's narrative lead on board. Hopefully something good comes from that.