Is Blizzard lacking creativity?

[monument]

like most of you fans, I checked out the new "wizard class" for D3. yes, its cool that the blizzard entertainment decided to continue line of Diablo series, but I'm not sure if they are truly ready for it. I mean, as I was watching the video clips of the Wizard class, one of the scene made me realize how similar this D3 was from the new developing SC2. the "Time-stop" spell. when I saw this, I was pretty disappointed, cause it was exactly like the "force-field" from SC2.
I'm not trying to put down the rep. of the game, but it's obvious that Blizzard is basically using same graphic engine for both of developing games, and if the games are based on same engines, the characteristics of two games are not going to be different from each other, and its also going to effect the players who expect to feel the unique sense of two individual games, established from previous games. (good example is medieval:total war and Rome. both of these games use same engine, which makes buying one of the game good enough to guess other one isn't much different from the one you have)
For long time, I respected Blizzard for more of their creativeness, and unique style of each games they make. I really hope that blizzard would be able to reach the high set of expectations from its die-hard fans. :]

Go Blizzard!

[Neuuubeh]

You do know using the same engine has nothing to do with the overall atmosphere? IT is almost as claiming that using the same coding language (c++ what else) would result in the same looks.

If Blizzard managed to make a good multi-purpose engine, all the better for them AND for the users/gamers as it would mean they can use a more widely used engine, resulting in less bugs and problems.

So yeah, they can use the same engine, and no, they dont have to look the same because of it. If they do, its simply Blizzards decision to have a certain recognizable look throughout their games.

And where did you actually READ that they are using the same engine for both games..?

[TheReadMenace]

If I could do a nuclear strike or had to start collecting minerals with SCVs in D3, THEN I'd start to get worried.

All seriousness, I keep in mind that they've got successful franchises in multiple genres. They've seen things that work and things that don't. A time-SLOW spell may be similar to the ability you refer to from SC, but it's new to Diablo. It stays fresh that way, IMO.

What about a paladin's ability to convert enemies to fight on their side? Or a necromancer's ability to confuse monsters? You could jump on Blizz by saying, "OH, Zerg's just a copy of those guys 'cuz you can infect and steal units and have them fight for you." Sure, the skills are similar, but they're not the same.

Now I wanna see a zergling in a paladin's armor...

In truth, I was actually pretty happy with the skills they showed for the Wizard. Someone compared them to WoW skills, but having never played it the skills seem quite different from the D2 sorceress'. That's enough creativity for me. So long as I don't feel like I'm playing the same character, it works, IMO.

[Akse]

Someone actually compared them to wow skills? Hahaha I think I haven't seen any that kind of skill in wow :)

[PiSeasA]

i see where u comin from~esp how the Disintegrate spell's concept, looks&functions exact same way as Protoss Disruptor ray (laser beam dealin more dmg the longer you hold it on one target). Then again, dont think there's a need to begrudge the devs for puttin a cool idea into more than one game - e.g. blizz spell originaly came from war3. pretty sure it'll feel quite diff using timestop in sc2 as opposed as to in d3, and disintegrate looks so cool i'd hate to see them leave it out in d3 jus coz they came up wif the idea for sc2 first

[cycloop]

What do you expect, there's a limit to elements you can add in a game, especially considering wizardry. I guess most of the skills you see in any other games have already made their entry in another game. All you want is shooting electricity in bolts, in a ray and in a chaining ray?

My personal point of view is that it's great they add more elements to the gameplay of a wizard, because comparing to the sorceres in D2 this one has a lot more options of playstyle, instead of just smashing the right mouse button and shooting chain lightning. Now if that's not creative then I'm a cow.

[Pitboss_2000]

Most of the Blizzard games have used skills, creatures, names and what-not from each other, this isn't a new thing at all.

[Kiroptus]

Yeah. Remember how much skills and concepts War3 had from Diablo2?

Blizzard's ideas always overlap between their games, this is nothing new.

[Bad Ash]

yeah I wouldnt worry too much because the game are drastically different. It isnt like Medieval total war and rome because those were both RTS (i think...). with SC2 being RTS and D3 being ARPG you will get two completely different games that might look similiar.

Trust me on that, SC2 and D3 will not play the same, the genres are too different

[visom]

It's normal for blizzard to base their names off of their other hits.

Archon plate, a diablo2 armor.
Archon, a SC2 unit.

Chain lighting, a sorc skill.
Chain lightning, a farseer skill.

Zealots, a monster in D2.
Zealots, a unit in SC2.

However this time D3 is basing a bit more ideas from WoW, but that's fine by me so long as it doesn't become an MMO and doesn't have a T rating.

[Starving_Poet]

Same Engine != Same Game

The Witcher and Neverwinter Nights 2 use the same engine, other than the fact that they're both over the shoulder 3rd person RPGs, the games are completely different.

[captain]

I feel blizzard is just getting started with their creativity. LOre and art work have been at the forefront of discussion and just because electrocute is what its called in the demo dosent mean it won't be called something elso. I coming to realize that blizzard and diablo are evolving. As technology gets better more ideas will be realized and not just concept art.

Look at Lord of the Rings. Those movies could never be as good as they were had it not been for newer technology.