Blizzard - One "Frontline" Release for 2009

I already saw these sort of reserve-your-SC2-copy boxes in one shop.

Originally Posted by chamr
You might want to check out the open beta for Dawn of War II. It cribs quite a few key elements from WCIII, such as a powerful hero with item slots and spell-like abilities that can't be attached to a unit, small units that earn experience so that you want to keep them alive, and small scale, tactical-focus combat that rewards micro management.

Sounds good, thank you for the recommendation

Not really pumped up about SCII any more, i mean, from what theyve shown us so far - kinda seems to me like it'll just be a 3D Starcraft. Truthfully I can barely play the original SC anymore, what with it's atrocious pathfinding, lack of such basic RTS standards now as formations (or just semblance of order to a groups of units), unit stances, etx. You know SCII will have all these now-standard RTS conventions, along w/ the hero units and what not… but w/ the same old races? The maps even kinda look the same.

They need to crank up the hype or something, show me something other than a 3d Starcraft.

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
Not really pumped up about SCII any more, i mean, from what theyve shown us so far - kinda seems to me like it'll just be a 3D Starcraft. Truthfully I can barely play the original SC anymore, what with it's atrocious pathfinding, lack of such basic RTS standards now as formations (or just semblance of order to a groups of units), unit stances, etx. You know SCII will have all these now-standard RTS conventions, along w/ the hero units and what not… but w/ the same old races? The maps even kinda look the same.

They need to crank up the hype or something, show me something other than a 3d Starcraft.

Well.. there is the story..

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
Not really pumped up about SCII any more, i mean, from what theyve shown us so far - kinda seems to me like it'll just be a 3D Starcraft. Truthfully I can barely play the original SC anymore, what with it's atrocious pathfinding, lack of such basic RTS standards now as formations (or just semblance of order to a groups of units), unit stances, etx. You know SCII will have all these now-standard RTS conventions, along w/ the hero units and what not… but w/ the same old races? The maps even kinda look the same.

They need to crank up the hype or something, show me something other than a 3d Starcraft.

There are plenty of new units, or old units redone/redesigned.
There's the 3 campaigns with plenty of cool ingame-cinematics and CG cinematics.
There are new mechanics for each race.
It will use Battle.ne 2.0 and the Blizzard Achievement System. Meaning achievements just like for WoW. And all this information will be shared on a unique Blizzard Account, for all games you buy from Blizzard (SC2,D3,WoW,etc).
The new version of Scum-Edit(or however they're calling it) which will offer the modding community a lot more power for modding the game.
The multi-player mode which will hopefully be as addicting as the original one.

There are hero units, but all they have is more health. Nothing like WC3.
Regarding path-finding problems we've had in SC1, I've read that it's done very well in SC2, units avoiding and moving smoothly between each other, regardless of their size.
There will be no formations, since it's not that kind of a game. It's more twitchy and fast.
I'm glad they didn't add another race. The only other know race are the Xel'naga and they are too mystical and powerful to be made playable. It would've seriously hampered the story/atmosphere imo. And any other race wouldn't really make sense imo. A race can't just appear out of no-where. Maybe the Hybrids?

These are plenty of reasons to be hyped imo.
And Beta will start very very soon. Rumors say March.

actually i thought there was only 1 campaign being released. and the other 2 are going to be released as seperate games probably a year apart each. it does all look the same, i agree, but if the story is good then i'll pick it up regradless. i'm interested to see how the command ship/upgrades/tech new feature is to be implemented.

Originally Posted by curious
actually i thought there was only 1 campaign being released. and the other 2 are going to be released as seperate games probably a year apart each. it does all look the same, i agree, but if the story is good then i'll pick it up regradless. i'm interested to see how the command ship/upgrades/tech new feature is to be implemented.

Yeah. Sorry about that. Just 1 campaign for the first game. The others will come with the other 2 expansions, which will also bring new multi-player content.

Originally Posted by curious
actually i thought there was only 1 campaign being released. and the other 2 are going to be released as seperate games probably a year apart each. it does all look the same, i agree, but if the story is good then i'll pick it up regradless. i'm interested to see how the command ship/upgrades/tech new feature is to be implemented.

I had been thinking of grabbing SC2 even though I'm not a big RTS fan because of how many I've played in the last few years for reviews … but his 'episodic content' has me leery.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I had been thinking of grabbing SC2 even though I'm not a big RTS fan because of how many I've played in the last few years for reviews … but his 'episodic content' has me leery.

It's not exactly episodic content. It's simply a reshuffling of their game content.
Initially they wanted to release 1 game and at least 2 addons. And the original game was supposed to have 1 campaign for each race at around 10 missions each, just like the original SC. And then release the other 2 addons, each with another 3 campaigns of around 10 missions each. So in the end you'd have 3 campaigns of around 30 missions each, but split over 3 installments.

But then they decided to re-organize their campaigns and focus each installment/addon on a campaign. Which is a good idea imo. At least I like the idea of having one campaign per installment of also around 30 mission. But now they can also do branching missions/storylines and optional missions, giving the campaign more non-linearity.

And from what I understand they're also a bit behind schedule with the other 2 campaigns, so if they would've gone with the initial way, we'd probably have to wait more than we have to wait now, since multi-player is already pretty done, and all that's left are the single-player campaigns.

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
Truthfully I can barely play the original SC anymore, what with it's atrocious pathfinding, lack of such basic RTS standards now as formations (or just semblance of order to a groups of units) unit stances, etx.

Hey go easy on Starcraft, the poor game is 11 years old!

Seriously though, it was awesome for it's time.

Ask Koreans about Starcraft.

For it's time, sure, I'm not knocking the significance of the legendary Starcraft. Hell knows I played the game enough, the only RTS that I really got into multiplayer (me and friends would always set several enemy ai's and go to town), I even made quite a few maps (if you ever come across the "Industrial Revolution" map by Ecksercist, that's mine). Ah, the sweet sound of "nuclear launch detected"!

But that was then, this is now. My patience for the single-file lines of soldiers marching to their doom just doesnt exist anymore. I logged a lot of time w/ GI Joes too as a kid, I just cant seem to get into it anymore.

If there was a GI Joe game however, w/ decent pathfinding and all that….

They haven't released anything since WoW - and that was before so many key members left.

I'm still very curious to see if their current direction with WoW is a true indication of what's become of Bliz in an overall sense.

If so - then that's one more great developer joining the ranks of Bioware and those of similar ilk - as in having gotten too big for their own good.

What's so different about the direction of WoW compared to earlier games, DA?

Originally Posted by Brother None
What's so different about the direction of WoW compared to earlier games, DA?

It's more expensive.

Originally Posted by Brother None
What's so different about the direction of WoW compared to earlier games, DA?

Well, in my opinion, Blizzard games were always "easy to learn, hard to master" - and that's how I felt about WoW initially, as well. All their games used to be like that, and it meant you could always reach a higher level of play, and there was always something "more" to achieve. I'm not saying that makes the content or the gameplay great - but it's a formula I can understand and respect.

It's true that they always went for the masses, but I used to see that as some kind of passion for them - rather than a result of greed. They CARED about pleasing a lot of people, where most AAA developers seem to do it for primarily economic reasons.

But with WoW - it has become "easy to learn, easy to master", which to me suggests that they're no longer following the same line of thinking, and I think it removes a vital ingredient for the players, namely: perspective.

Now, I don't want to start an argument about casual vs hardcore players, but I personally believe that for a game like WoW to be really interesting, in the long-term, you need to give players perspective. In old WoW, that meant end-game raids - and especially casual gamers always had something out of reach that they could either strive for, or simply accept never getting to. That kind of perspective makes it easier to establish "meaningful" goals - where I think it's a huge mistake to serve everything up on a silver platter, with little or no effort required. Not because I care about or want to cater to the "elite" players, but because I think psychologically, we need something "out of reach" to keep us going.

I could be wrong, and indeed, it seems WoW is still escalating in popularity - but I don't think we can discount the pop-culture trend factor entirely. I lost interest long ago, but I've been - on occasion - considering whether I should return for a stint, but with how things are now - there's really REALLY no point. I get no pleasure from simply going through the motions, and having content served with no significant challenge is just not very interesting.

I'm proposing they've lost their way, and that they're simply running on cruise speed with the WoW expansions. They have enough money to make it look and sound great, but from where I'm sitting - WoW lost its soul years ago.

I'm just wondering if it's because Bliz developers are half-way sick of WoW, or if they've simply changed at a fundamental level.

Beyond the case of WoW, I'm also getting the same kind of vibe with Diablo 3. First thing was the bright cartoony color style - and I keep hearing how they want to streamline everything. I'm not a fanatic, and I understand it doesn't HAVE to be bad - but I'm certainly not detecting any edge here. Bliz were never about edge, but I still think they had something slightly edgy with the Diablo franchise, and everything points towards them not caring - in the least - about keeping the dark and somewhat "mature" style of Diablo, especially the first one. When I say mature, I'm not talking about an intellectual level - but more the fact that you saw naked virgins torn in half lying on sacrificial tables and stuff like that. Somehow, I don't see that happening in Diablo 3.

Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Does that make sense?

Yes. But:

1) Consider how vague the demarcations that you offer between "edgy" and "non-edgy" or "hard to master" and "easy to master" can be, it's worth considering that right or wrong, it's basically just speculation, and possibly extracting overly wide conclusions from a way too narrow sample.

2) Isn't the genre difference between RTS and MMO a big factor in this anyway? Hack 'n slash is a halfway house between the two, in this case.

Originally Posted by Brother None
Yes. But:

1) Consider how vague the demarcations that you offer between "edgy" and "non-edgy" or "hard to master" and "easy to master" can be, it's worth considering that right or wrong, it's basically just speculation, and possibly extracting overly wide conclusions from a way too narrow sample.

Why would I reconsider based on your suspicion that it might be this or that. You might not spend a lot of time analysing the industry and the players within in, but I do.

I don't think there's anything vague about what I said - and I think I did an ok job detailing what I meant. It takes experience with the games in question, and with the design philosophy of Blizzard to get what I'm talking about. They've been very open and honest in interviews about what's important to them, and the "easy to learn, hard to master" rule is something they always spoke about. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious if you're a fan that this formula is indeed the one they've been using since I can remember. All their games start out simple and get progressively more interesting and challenging. That's why many people think of Diablo 2 as a simple hack and slash clickfest, because they've no idea what it takes to make it through hell difficulty level. That's also exactly what happened in old WoW - and you get a couple of skills to start with - and the game doesn't really get into its own until the later levels.

I don't make these observations casually - and they're based on deep reflection on what I've experienced with this industry in general, and the games of Blizzard specifically. I have a great interest in game design and how you keep people entertained throughout. This very subject is probably the one I've spent the most time studying and caring about during my life.

That said, nothing is for sure and that's the reason for my curiousity. If I was certain, I wouldn't need to be curious.

I've had a bad feeling since the key members of Blizzard North left, and nothing Blizzard has done since then has made me feel any better.

2) Isn't the genre difference between RTS and MMO a big factor in this anyway? Hack 'n slash is a halfway house between the two, in this case.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I've had a bad feeling since the key members of Blizzard North left, and nothing Blizzard has done since then has made me feel any better.

Most of those key people from Blizzard North went to develop HGL which was a bust. I personally have full faith in Blizzard. But you have a point about them making WoW more manageable for the masses. Mostly since the release of WotLK which was obviously meant more for the casual players.

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
Most of those key people from Blizzard North went to develop HGL which was a bust. I personally have full faith in Blizzard. But you have a point about them making WoW more manageable for the masses. Mostly since the release of WotLK which was obviously meant more for the casual players.

HGL was a complete failure on many levels, but I personally think it's a GREAT game and I think it represents the first real evolution in the genre since Diablo 2.

I don't expect that many people to agree, but I was very sad to see it fail because of such a horrible launch, and the several questionable decisions by Flagship.

But I don't take a failed game as my compass for measuring the qualities of the people behind it. I think they got a raw deal with murphy's law and they are typical of the kind of artists bound to fail. They didn't understand business and they didn't know how to curtail their own ambitions.

That's sad, but I respect them tremendously as developers.