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."

Top starcraft?

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.

Re:Top starcraft?

Yeah, look at Half-Life 2 -- oh wait, it did better.

We're not talking about not id or Valve or anyone else, just Blizzard.
They can pull it off.

Re:Top starcraft?

Also Starcraft came out in 1998. It's not like Blizzard rushed out a sequel just to cash in.

Can Blizzard Top StarCraft?

Short answer: "yes" with an "if"
Long answer: "no" with a "but"

Wouldn't the better question be...

.. 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.

Re:Wouldn't the better question be...

I'm not sure that's such a fair comparison: Starcraft isn't likely to cannibalize sales and if Blizzard gets a good ROI from this new project, the success of WoW in comparison is moot... IF the teams developing aren't being pulled away from maintaining and enhancing WoW in a way that matters. Looking at the later half of EQ, most of the staff wound up replaced by less experienced (read: cheaper) developers to maintain it since at that time the code base was mature enough that nothing could be messed with that would destroy the world as players knew it.

I'll assume they did the math and figured it'd be a good investment. Blizzard is a business first, after all.

Meanwhile, if they made a new MMOG to top themselves with WoW, they risk the new project cannibalizing their own subscribers. Back in the day I played Everquest and with new-at-the-time games like Anarchy Online and Planetside I still couldn't bring myself to pay for more than one online game since A) the new game consumes time, B) time is linked to progress in MMOGs by design, C) I'm paying full price regardless of how many hours I actually use each period.

Re:Wouldn't the better question be...

I'd agree, If Blizzard were to make a new MMO I would assume they'd probably make something for the 360/PS3 platforms where they could grow an entirely new userbase without sacrificing their current ones.

Despite the fact that WoW has been out for quite some time I think most of the users would feel the game was being abandoned before it's time if they turned out another MMO. Starcraft on the other hand is long overdue for a new addition to the franchise. The advancements in technology alone give them a lot of room to improve.

Re:Wouldn't the better question be...

The number 2 seller for PC games in North America? [gamasutra.com] That starcraft isn't selling many new copies?

Re:Wouldn't the better question be...

I'd question if StarCraft really is losing them money. People are still purchasing the game, either replacing old disks or buying it for the first time, and the related paraphernalia associated with StarCraft still sells quite well. There's still a huge following for StarCraft in Korea, which is why they announced SC2 there. StarCraft was released in 1998, and as of a few years ago, it still had branded Doritos being distributed (cannot verify if they still are, sorry). So far as I can tell, no other game (MMO or not) has managed to have that kind of staying power a marketplace outside of its own industry.

I won't argue that WoW is Blizzard's bread and butter, they've got a ton of subscribers (myself included) pouring a lot of money into their coffers, but I heavily disagree that SC is a negative drain on their resources. A moneysink would be what is left of the game originally known as SWG, if Blizzard had that steamy pile of poodoo instead of SOE. Running battle.net servers for something with as rabid a following as SC, however, is far from a moneysink. It maintains a status quo, and probably breaks even when cost is weighed against revenue.

Finally, the decision to not pursue an MMO is actually a good one, imho. It avoids cutting into Blizzard's current revenue stream...WoW. When you have something that works, especially something that works as well as WoW does for making money, why jeopardize that? What would happen if they made a World of StarCraft, and users found they hated that game? Some would gravitate back to WoW, others would swear off Blizzard games entirely. Personally, that's what I did with SOE's handling of SWG. SOE may very well come out with the best WoW killer ever, but myself and a ton of other old-style SWG players would snub the game just because SOE is involved with it. The same could happen to Blizzard with a competing MMO that doesn't live up to the hype it's given before release. They know SC2 will generate a great return on investment, simply because of the hype associated and the loyal fans they have already. They have no need to top WoW, they only need to satiate as much of the playerbase for SC2 as possible.

Re:Wouldn't the better question be...

No, it wouldn't be. Considering that (at this point) there is no WoW2 and WoW is already making tons of money, there is no need to top WoW. Starcraft is one of the most loved and still played RTSs of all time. It is a valid question to see if they can actually improve the most balanced 3 faction RTS ever seen. But Starcraft is 10 years old now and it deserves and update and a continuation of its excellent single player story. I know it may be hard to understand, but "topping" something doesn't have to mean more profit or more units sold. It can also mean just making a better game.

Of course they can

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)

Shouldn't be too hard

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...

Can? Most likely. Will? We'll see.

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.

Re:Can? Most likely. Will? We'll see.

Balance is the secret. Blizzard spent two years polishing the balance of WCIII. *Two* whole years just balancing the races. That's why they sell #1 titles for years.

There are plenty of other games that have better controls, better features, less repetition and clicking, more races, equal or better storytelling, better graphics. But the one thing that they do not have that blizzard does is racial balance. That's what truly makes the multiplayer experience a game, where any round could almost always go any way, instead of it always being a blow-out because one player knew the surefire technique. Blizzard's games are about strategy, not tricks.

Obligatory...

Penny Arcade li... OH WAIT, it's already in the summary. Crap.

No.

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.)

a common mistake

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.

No, they really can't

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.

Re:No, they really can't

I'm playing through Starcraft again right now and I still enjoy it as much now as I did then. Unlike a lot of other games, Starcraft does have the staying power to actually still be considered a good game. Yeah, I agree, some games you can't go back to. But Starcraft you can and most the people I know have played through Starcraft many times over the years...not just 10 years ago.

I'd be shocked if they can...

I STILL play starcraft!

Not a chance

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

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!

they focus on multi

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...

Total Annihilation

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.

WoW gets old though...

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.

Blizzard raped my childhood!

Er, I guess it's too early for that post right now... come back in a few years.

From the screen shot I saw...

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.

BLizzard

Screwed the SC download percents
in game rooms with latest patch.
and they don't seem to be releasing a fix.

warcraft iii

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.

In other words...

Will this be Blizzard's Revolver or White Album?

Re:If history is any indication...

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.

A little bitter, are we?

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

Thought so. I'm usually the only one to see the truth.

Re:For me, Starcraft is like crack.

Heh. Back when I was playing this game intensely, I always referred to it as "StarCrak". I couldn't put down the pipe, man. Many were the day I'd stumble into work late, bleary-eyed, and my office-mate would ask "... up playing StarCrack all night again?" :-)

Never tried crack, have you?

"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.