Dummies who hold Starcraft's pink-slip

Sarxis · April 25, 2002, 16:31

Every other weak, there is a poll at the big game websites asking "which games should get a sequel?", and Starcraft usually have thousands of replies and beats out the other options by a large margin.

What the hell is wrong with Blizzard Entertainment? Why won't they capitalize on this?

I actually went and bought the game a few months ago (the budget pack) and, even though it has aged tremendously, I can see why it is STILL such a hit.

So, what is the deal?

Imran Siddiqui · April 25, 2002, 17:03

Oh, I bet they will... They are busy with Warcraft 3 and all.

Blizzard doesn't really announce games until they have a bunch of kick ass screen shots

.

Sarxis · April 25, 2002, 17:08

I see.

Yeah- forgot that Warcraft III was in beta testing. I bet we will hear something about SC2 within the next few years/months/days.

mactbone · April 25, 2002, 17:41

There's also World of Warcraft in the works.

You have to realize that Warcraft 3 has been confirmed since sometime in 1999 - that's three years ago. They take a lot of time, whether that's good or bad is up for grabs. I've seen WC3 in action, and it's pretty good, but it doesn't really grab me and make me look - certainly not the way it did when the first screenshots were released.

General Ludd · April 25, 2002, 18:45

I've played the WarCraft III beta and, personally, I'd sooner play StarCraft. ('though I wish StarCraft had higher resolution options

)

Urban Ranger · April 25, 2002, 23:40

There is little difference between all those realtime games that came out of Blizzard so far.

SnowFire · April 25, 2002, 23:44

I've played the WC3 beta and think it rules beyond rulership. But that's just me. I like micromanagement and heroes.

General Ludd · April 25, 2002, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
I've played the WC3 beta and think it rules beyond rulership. But that's just me. I like micromanagement and heroes.

Although I didn't play it for long, I don't remember anything that involved more micromanagement then any other RTS. What, exactly, are you refering to?

As for the heroes - I thought they where pretty cheesy, and a half-assed attempt at adding new content.... but I didn't exactly hate them, either.

tniem · April 26, 2002, 01:14

IIRC, Blizzard currently has three full design teams. One is working on WC3, one is working on Worlds of Warcraft, and the other was the team that did Diablo II. What the third team is working on is a mystery. Officially they are working on the story and starting work on a new game, but nothing announced. Blizzard usually makes sure that they are pretty far into the game before releasing such information.

The assumption I have heard on some Blizzard boards is that the team working on WC3 will move on to SC2 after WC3 is finished. The third team is working on some other game (most likely not Diablo3 but can never be sure). Of course this all speculation.

I would assume that Blizzard will return to the StarCraft world before too long, though, it would make them a killing - of course all their games will.

Grumbold · April 26, 2002, 06:30

Yeah give Blizzard their due. Many other companies would churn out mediocre new versions of their successful games every few months or so to maximise their profits (Sims: Bored to Tears anyone?) Making a quality version every few years stops it getting too stale provided you don't go round buying every second rate alternative that comes out in the meantime.

Urban Ranger · April 28, 2002, 02:09

Yeah but there is no new idea coming out of Blizzard. All their realtime games are more of the same, just different settings.

Is there anything innovative from Blizzard?

Jethro83 · April 28, 2002, 02:34

My brother is still OBSESSED with playing Starcraft on Battle.net

Kinda sad really, since there aren't that many people who play fair on Battle.net (not to mention killer lag). I wonder how he will survive when I leave home and take all MY games with me (since I did buy Starcraft back in 1998).

If they do make a Starcraft II, I just hope they DO innovate rather than simply make it another "Warcraft in Space"

I do occasionally still play it, but only the single player campaigns (love the Terran campaign of Brood War, well... the second and second-last scenarios at least), however, I am more into Civ III, SMAC and Diablo II.

And in the C&C vs. Warcraft II debate years back, I was on side with C&C.

tniem · April 28, 2002, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yeah but there is no new idea coming out of Blizzard. All their realtime games are more of the same, just different settings.

Is there anything innovative from Blizzard?

Probably not, except a radical approach to making games - finish them. Sure they release patches and some of them have had problems. But most of that has had to do with online gaming conflicts. The games have when released been the best industry. They are complete and quality. Not a single one has come out at Christmas but instead when finished. So the reason Blizzard has been so successful is that while they might not be making innovative games, they are making the best games in the genre they choose to work in.

FrustratedPoet · April 29, 2002, 05:17

very true ... innovation is great (and the games industry needs more of it), but Blizzard have an excellent track record of only releasing their games when they're ready (often several months late, not early

) and for producing some of the best games in the genre.
i really like the way that WC3 is shaping up, Blizzard's patching of the Beta has been frequent and they have demonstrated a commitment to work out as many bugs and balancing issues as possible before release ... a lesson most other companies would do well to follow.

Spaced Cowboy · April 29, 2002, 10:00

Hey FP,

Love your sig!

Still no sign of the Skanky Mafia.

R:PM

FrustratedPoet · April 29, 2002, 12:20

Check out Skanky's sig too ...

After the recent confrontation I am now assimilated into his Cold Beer regime ... the first team meeting since the kidnapping, on Saturday, passed off without bloodshed ...

Urban Ranger · April 29, 2002, 23:43

tniem & FP,

That's true, they don't release any games until they are finished. So is id Software, which is even more radical by not even saying when they expect their games will be ready.

Dis · April 30, 2002, 03:24

Blizzard rules.

yeah they take a while, but the games are in pretty good shape when they ship.

But I'm not big on RTS. But I do like the company. Although they are almost too good a company. Battle.net could use more bandwith. But its free which is nice. I have no intention of buying an online game that cost me money per month. I can't get enough hours in per month.

Skanky Burns · April 30, 2002, 03:25

I don't blame id Software for not making any promises about when their games should be released. Imagine all their fans getting upset....

*Image of thousands of fans taking to the streets armed with all sorts of guns*

Jethro83 · April 30, 2002, 05:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I don't blame id Software for not making any promises about when their games should be released. Imagine all their fans getting upset....

*Image of thousands of fans taking to the streets armed with all sorts of guns*

Hate to imagine. Anyway, I don't see any disappointment amongst friends of mine who are id fans when Quake 3 is released. All I hear about it is "Quake 3 rules" and "Don't you have Quake 3 yet?". Its like they don't care about how little has changed between Q2 and Q3 (apart from the omission of a single-player game with a plot). Reading through PC Powerplay, I get the impression that fanaticism towards Quake 3 is what defines the "Hardcore" gamer. Kinda why I stopped getting it every month. If being a gamer takes being a fan of every crock that id releases, then no thanks.

Sarxis · April 30, 2002, 07:16

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal

Its like they don't care about how little has changed between Q2 and Q3 (apart from the omission of a single-player game with a plot). Reading through PC Powerplay, I get the impression that fanaticism towards Quake 3 is what defines the "Hardcore" gamer.

So, do you have Quake 3 yet? Answer carefully! It may change my opinion of you. lol

I know what you mean about games being fads though; its as if you are from an alien planet if you like different games than your peers.

MrWhereItsAt · April 30, 2002, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yeah but there is no new idea coming out of Blizzard. All their realtime games are more of the same, just different settings.

Is there anything innovative from Blizzard?

They may be same old, same old, UR, but the thing with Blizzard games is that they are just so damn addictive! You HAVE to buy the expansion, the sequel, the original...

Garth Vader · April 30, 2002, 14:56

I can't think of anything they could do to improve Starcraft. I would have liked to have seen more campaigns, Broodwars could have used more cutscenes too, but that's about it.

Jethro83 · April 30, 2002, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
So, do you have Quake 3 yet? Answer carefully! It may change my opinion of you. lol

I don't have Quake 3 and I don't plan on getting it. I played it a bit on a friend's computer once and I can say that all the hype isn't really justified at all. It was the most overrated piece of dog dung I'd ever played. Nothing had changed from Quake II except the graphics.

I'd much rather be playing Half-Life with the High Definition pack.

And if this means I'm not considered "Hardcore" as a gamer, then so be it. I didn't want to be a "hardcore" gamer anyway. Just a "Casual" gamer.

Quote:

I know what you mean about games being fads though; its as if you are from an alien planet if you like different games than your peers.

That's exactly right. The last LAN party I went to, nothing was played but Diablo II (fine by me, even if my best Barbarian was 30 levels below the rest. They shuttled him up to their level), Alien vs. Predator (again, fine by me. That's a decent game) and Quake III. They couldn't understand me when during the Quake III game, I was playing Civ III and SMAC instead.

Sarxis · April 30, 2002, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal

I don't have Quake 3 and I don't plan on getting it. I played it a bit on a friend's computer once and I can say that all the hype isn't really justified at all. It was the most overrated piece of dog dung I'd ever played. Nothing had changed from Quake II except the graphics.

I'd much rather be playing Half-Life with the High Definition pack.

And if this means I'm not considered "Hardcore" as a gamer, then so be it. I didn't want to be a "hardcore" gamer anyway. Just a "Casual" gamer.

That's exactly right. The last LAN party I went to, nothing was played but Diablo II (fine by me, even if my best Barbarian was 30 levels below the rest. They shuttled him up to their level), Alien vs. Predator (again, fine by me. That's a decent game) and Quake III. They couldn't understand me when during the Quake III game, I was playing Civ III and SMAC instead.

You have answered... wisely.

(The other guy, the one who answered poorly, had to face Xaero on Nightmare difficulty all by himself.. without his own railgun! ROFL!!

)

Urban Ranger · May 1, 2002, 00:11

MrWhere,

Maybe to you. To me, Starcraft is just Warcraft in space. So there is one more race. Ho hum.

Garth,

The single player campaigns are so

It's the same thing over and over again:

1. Survive the initial onslaught
2. Build up
3. Win by attrition

I particularly loath the Protass one with the civil war.

One thing they can do is to have the AI not cheating. Another thing they can do is they could have some sort of branching campaign, so that when you lose a scenario you can do something new instead of going over the same thing over and over again until you win.

The third thing they can do is to add more strategy and less puzzle solving.

Triped · May 1, 2002, 02:37

'craft campaigns are absolute sh*t.

Blizzard designs the gameplay around multi-player..the single-player is really just an addon, which explains why they're so boring.

Jethro83 · May 1, 2002, 03:46

And the Brood War plot isn't anything great either. Its like they only took half a day to think it up. Sure, it continues after the original plot fine, but many things in it don't make sense. So I don't throw a spoiler into this thread, I'm not going to mention them.

And its ending is craptacular.

Skanky Burns · May 1, 2002, 04:10

Quote:

To me, Starcraft is just Warcraft in space. So there is one more race. Ho hum.

The amazing thing is they managed to make 3 races that had distinct, balanced abilities and playstyles. You played a different game depending on what race you chose.

FrustratedPoet · May 1, 2002, 04:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

The amazing thing is they managed to make 3 races that had distinct, balanced abilities and playstyles. You played a different game depending on what race you chose.

which is what they're trying to do with WC3.

In WC2 the humans and orcs were essentially identical (except the orcs were better because of the ogre's bloodlust spell), but in WC3 Blizz are trying to make all 4 playable races as different as possible while still keeping them balanced. Not an easy task, which is why they're patching the c**p outta their beta at the moment.