Slashdot Mirror
Can Blizzard Top StarCraft?
MSNBC is running an interview with Blizzard designer Rob Pardo discussing a number of facets of the upcoming StarCraft II. Informational tidbits include the fact that, unsurprisingly, the game won't be released this year, and some background on the game's long development cycle. "Penny Arcade figured it out! We keep games under code names and we teach developers to refer to games by their code name. And we're just really careful about talking about the game internally. We don't bring external folks through unannounced product areas. But I think even I'm surprised that we were able to keep it under wraps all the way to the end."
No, the hype machine is to great for star craft 2 to ever live up to. Not saying it won't be good just well...hype ruins things.
Short answer: "yes" with an "if"
Long answer: "no" with a "but"
.. can Blizzard top Wow?
Starcraft sold a ton of copies, but it is now a moneysink. It is free to play on Battle.Net and not many new copies are being sold. They are continuously losing money from a game created many many years ago.
The $15/month from a MMO cannot be understated. The decision to make a non-MMO game after the success of WoW is very puzzling.
I mean, there will be as always fanboys living in the past wishing that SCII was SC, but I thing, if they keep the main gameplay (which is not too hard, because all strategy games are ****nearly**** the same) and then they add some better graphics, cool armies, weapons, music, etc... They have a winner there... Of course there will always be fanboys living in the past ...(repeat at nauseum)
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Cavedog managed to top Starcraft before Starcraft was even released, so it should be too hard for Blizzard to do the same.
Then again, this is Blizzard we're talking about...
At least it's not EA. Or we'd get SC1 in 1600x1200 with true 3D, zooming and surround sound. But since it's not, it's actually quite possible we get a totally new game.
What made SC1 was the perfect balance. Sure, it took a few patches, but essentially, it was balanced to the extreme. I attribute my inability to win as a Protoss more to my inability to play the game well rather than a balance issue (I get my ass whipped regularely by other people playing Protoss... there's a reason why you rarely see me at those tournament finals, ya know...), if they manage to get SC2 well balanced again, it's a seller.
Let's face it, people. After the "ohhh shiny" effect wears off, which is usually after a month tops, what's left is whether the game is fun to play or not. And fun in a multiplayer RTS game hangs mostly on game balance while at the same time offering actually different sides with different units (hello Supreme Commander...), and strategies that you have to adapt to the side you play, and the side you play against. And SC1 had that down to the point.
My guess is that the success, especially the long time success, of SC2 hang on balance. Not graphics, not sound, not handling, not interface (as long as they don't overload it and make it unplayable). Balance or not balance will be the decider that tips the balance in favor or against SC2.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Penny Arcade li... OH WAIT, it's already in the summary. Crap.
You can't live up to expectations this high. How are you supposed to top what people already consider perfection? Of course, when you consider that the original wasn't even close to perfect, I suppose it becomes easier - just slightly.
(Disclaimer: I hated the original Starcraft.)
it's called "brood war", not "brood wars" (as it was referred to in the interview). there wasn't multiple wars going on; just one. kerrigan verses basically everyone else.
For all the people who played and loved Starcraft, they'll be comparing Starcraft 2 against the feelings they got playing Starcraft ten years ago, colored by the fact that after ten years its really easy to remember things more fondly then how you felt about them originally.
They could make the best RTS on the market, and it still wouldn't "top" Starcraft in the eyes of many of the fans. Its an impossible goal, because there is no real way to judge it.
Hopefully they'll just focus on trying to make a good game in the spirit of Starcraft. If they can do that, I'll be happy.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
They'll release a great game that everybody will love. However shortly before release the developers will all quit and Blizzard will hire a group of addicted RTS fanboys to make further improvements to the game. These new developers will focus exclusively on the one area of the game that they were obsessed with in other games. They will eventually release an expansion that will begin driving away the people that formed the majority of those that originally were drawn to the game.
I STILL play starcraft!
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
I watched the gameplay video and I liked most of what I saw in it, but they're talking an awful lot about recapturing the things that made starcraft great - only the things they focus on are counter strategies, battle.net play and diverse factions. Which is great, but that alone doesn't make a new starcraft - and I'm worried that Blizzard won't be able to own up to the great gameplay they used too.
Which seem to be a problem in recent Blizzard releases, because where the gameplay itself used to be their strongest advantage it now seems to be the weakest. World of Warcraft doesn't sell copies because it has great gameplay, but because it functions as a virtual stamp collection with friends. You, me, everyone gets addicted to the game because you can achive achive achive - but where diablo 2 which also focused on achivement actually was fun while you achive World of Warcraft isn't. At least that is how I experienced the reactions on recent Blizzard games. I know about 50 people who own Warcraft 3, but the only thing they use it for is Dota which is a player made map/mod. I also know quite a lot of people who keep playing World of Warcraft despite continuously complaining about it feeling more like a job than a video game.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem to fit with the massive stream of talented developers who fled Blizzard a few years ago - leaving to companies like Flagship studeos, red5 and so on. Which is where I personally believe we'll be seing the next Starcraft/Diablo/Warcarft quality games comming from in terms of gameplay. Naturally both Blizzard and Starcraft are huge brands, and I very much doubt Starcraft 2 will fail in any way - but to fans who agree with me I do believe it'll be unable to provide the kind of magic the origianl Starcraft did.
I hope they make a decent single player campaign. It almost feels like a formula - 7 missions per race, with just unlocking the highest tech at the very last mission, and the first missions more or less a trainer. I do enjoy multi player, but so many of the games feel like they are purposely cut short to sell an expansion pack. RTS games seem to get shorter and shorter. Just finished Supreme Commander, and compared to its earlier incarnation of Total Annihilation, it felt really short. (even with the 2+ hour expanding map missions) Still - glad to have an update to what I rank as one of my favorite games!
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Starcraft was a pretty good game, but nothing beats the old Total Annihilation for sophistication and depth of gameplay. It just seems that people would rather micromanage zerglings than deal with TA, with its unlimited group sizes, multitude of units, creative resource model, and so on.
The thing I like most about TA is the resource model. Unlike in nearly every other RTS on earth, resources are never depleted. I found it absurd that one could deplete an entire forest or mineral deposit in the course of one battle. In TA, one constructs resource-producing buildings which produce a steady stream of resources; thus it's all about the rate of resource production, not the quantity. It gets more interesting than that, though, as one can store resources, salvage wrecks for resources, and so on. It's complex and interesting.
Also, unlike in Starcraft, there's no build order. It's not a game of memorizing openings so that rushes can be executed, but instead of figuring out tactics and strategy as you go along.
But i never much liked StarCraft. It was all rushing, and in the bief chance that it wasn't, it was just a matter of who had the largest army. There never seemed to be much actually strategy. Then again, I don't think a lot of "strategy" games do posses such qualities. WarCraft III was certainly better than StarCraft, regardless. Then again, Blizzard's design teams may already be far too tainted by MMOs to churn out a decent sequel to StarCraft...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Balance of power between the three races isn't the only important balance that Blizzard needs to get right. There's also the balance to get the right level of unit capability complexity.
Brood War unit types got a little more complex compared to the original SC. For instance, blinding was introduced, but medics could heal it. The more different kinds of capabilities you need to worry about balancing, the harder you have to thing about the game. And if your mental juggling drops just one or two of those balls, you might find yourself wiped out by a powerful enemy unit that you failed to build a specific defense against.
So I'm a little afraid that SC2 will take a long time for players to develop strategies regarding, and that those strategies will be necessarily complex for the afore-mentioned reasons. This could mean that the game is less fun for now-casual gamers like myself who need to not dedicate too much gray matter to storing a units-capabilities database.
Take a look at your average crack addict. What does he/she want? More crack. They don't care if it's exactly the same as the crack they had last time or completely different in every way, they just want crack. By comparison, I just want more Starcraft, I don't really care if its nearly identical the original Starcraft, or completely different. I will buy it. I will love it. It will own me (Not the other way around). But that's just how it goes for a crack... err, Starcraft junkie such as myself...
"Now I'm seriously serious!" - Serious Sam
It would be called "World of Starcraft".
I would love if blizzard released a new MMO, one that wasn't based on the warcraft universe. I play WoW not because it's warcraft but because it's a terrificly designed MMO. I have little doubt any MMO they made at this point would only improve on WoW. How many of their players play it because it's Warcraft theme vs how many play it because it's a great game to play? I know I fall into the latter, and am actively seeking a new MMO that's more my style. If SWG hadn't been so FUBARed I'd probably still be there. But I digress.
So cannibalizing their current customers? I'm not so sure... I can't be the only one seeking out their competition.
Er, I guess it's too early for that post right now... come back in a few years.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
It almost feels like a formula
Which game? the original starcraft, or the newer warcraft series?
One of the best things about the franchise, is that blizzard
usually makes available map editing tools so that you can make your
own campaigns and missions if you want, or download and play other
peoples campaigns.
"Take a look at your average crack addict. What does he/she want? More crack. They don't care if it's exactly the same as the crack they had last time or completely different in every way, they just want crack."
Not to be pedantic, but people who know cocaine in any of its forms usually know EXACTLY what kind they want. They know how the good stuff feels. And they're bitterly disappointed when, as often happens, they don't get the good stuff.
The fact that you could queue movements, builds, attacks, and various other things by simply using the shift key was a huge plus in TA. I wish more RTS game makers would implement that sort of consistent UI in their games.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Please prove me wrong
Yes, Starcraft is a PPC executable running under Rosetta. But what Blizzard did do was release an OS X version of Starcraft some years ago which is what allows it to continue running under Rosetta today. Diablo II might be based on OS 9 which is not supported on Intel Macs.
Still, I wish they would release an updated Starcraft executable for Intel Macs. It runs ok, but it's a little laggy and makes the laptop run hot and drain the battery.
are 'strategy' and 'tactics'. That's the reason the RTS genre always seems split in two... there's games that are mostly focused on having the right unit do the right move at the right time. Then there's games that are focused on having the right groups of units in the right place at the right time.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Unfortunately from the screen shot I saw of SC2 it looks like it has the same problem War 3 has. I feel to close to the action. Everything is bigger, you have less screen space than War 1 & 2 and SC. It would be great if I could pull the camera view back a bit.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
You'll no doubt get howled down by Blizzard fanboys, but I totally agree with you. Total Annihilation has a level of depth and subtlety that wasn't matched in an RTS until... well, Supreme Commander.
It beggars belief that many 'modern' RTS games (like C&C3) STILL don't do some of the more obviously good things that TA implemented.
Starcraft was a great game, but it was simplistic and relied very heavily on the "Unit X beats unit Y but is itself beaten by unit Z" philosophy. TA and Supreme Commander are far more interesting in that virtually anything can damage virtually anything else, but in different ways and to different degrees - so the player is far freer to develop a unique strategy and attempt to actually out-think their opponent.
In my opinion Blizzard games since Warcraft II have focused too heavily on small numbers of powerful and/or unique units, often with "special" abilities which must be micromanaged by the player. As a result they border on an RPG rather than an RTS. I have much the same criticism of the "Tanya" levels from Red Alert 2 and other C&C games - playing with one powerful unit running around slaughtering things is more akin to 'Cannon Fodder' than a real RTS game.
Read Pynchon.
Unlike normal games, most MMO players will only pay those $15/month for a single game at a time. If you're the market leader, it makes no sense to launch a game to take customers from yourself. Unless they made a completely differnt MMO that caters to an entirely different segment of players, which is very, very hard.
Sure, they'll make another MMO. But not until WoW popularity is declining, or they have a MMO idea that would be radically different and cater to people that don't play WoW. Which could very well be the starcraft MMO, they just want to see how the Conan MMO and other types play out, as companies release different types of MMOs while exploring player segments different from the WoW medieval leveling type.
I lost my sig.
Screwed the SC download percents
in game rooms with latest patch.
and they don't seem to be releasing a fix.
enough people play warcraft 3... even though for most of us it is just a substitute for starcraft. I think that as long as it has as good multiplayer as wc3 had, updated graphics, and an ok story line people will be happy.
Oh! and it would be *really nice* if they reintroduced NAT piercing. starcraft did nat piercing (or at least let you host somehow), but wc3 needs port redirection! sc2 definitely needs to learn to do some NAT piercing.
they focus on multiplay mainly these days... but yeah, I'd like to see a campaign as good as starcraft's if possible, as that's a big part of what drew people in... Warcraft by comparison has an incredibly corny plot. I couldn't stand to play through the frozen throne campaign. I felt like I was torturing myself.
Starcraft by comparison was much more about the single player campaign. They ended up making the multiplay pretty good, but you will notice that there are tons of units that are totally useless in multiplayer mode (infected command center? light and dark archons? zerg queen?). Multi play in pretty much every serious game became mostly about being really good at producing lots of low level units really quickly really early. Later in the game someone *might* mass battlecruisers or carriers if it's BGH.
Personally, I'm hoping they're trim the units (it looks like they've already done that actually) and make nukes more useful. Nukes were one of the most fun things in SC, but also one of the most impractical (you could make it work... but there was almost always a better strat.). Nukes should be a little less powerful, but much easier to obtain. At the very least I don't want to have to built extra command centers...
How to top WOW:
Buck a nuke! : with the science facility built a player can launch a nuclear missile at any time during the game by paying Blizzard one dollar.
Try the Blizzard-created Enslavers missions if you're looking for a Starcraft single player challenge... particularly Enslavers 2 - Dark Vengeance. I still haven't been able to legitimately beat a couple of those missions even after all these years.
Will this be Blizzard's Revolver or White Album?
There should be a way to make two computers with the same IP play in a 2vs2 over the Internet, with no lag.
Games like Quake2 have no problem with this.
So this is the main thing they need to fix in SC.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.