Can Blizzard Top StarCraft? 144
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they can (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't be too hard (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, this is Blizzard we're talking about...
Can? Most likely. Will? We'll see. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Top starcraft? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not talking about not id or Valve or anyone else, just Blizzard.
They can pull it off.
Re:Wouldn't the better question be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, $15 a month is probably a lot more money...
Re:Of course they can (Score:2, Insightful)
I would agree with your statement if you meant only the most famous RTS games (Starcraft/Command and Conquer, at least the early games, and probably Warcraft). However, there's a decent amount of games beneath the radar that are actually quite awesome and play quite differently. Refer to the Homeworld series by Relic Studios. Also, lately, Relic has been putting out some decent RTSs based around the principle of capturing strategic points on the map for resources instead of mining them (see: Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War and Company of Heroes). I'm sure there's more; those are just the ones I'm familiar with.
Yes, I suppose I am a Relic fanboy to some extent, although I don't worship the company. It has made a couple things I'd rather forget completely.
(/offtopic)
No, they really can't (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Shouldn't be too hard (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, TA and SC are two different flavors of RTS. TA and SupCom focus more on realistic tactics, battles and skirmishes than resource gathering. *craft games focus more on base building and other micromanagement tasks I think. I dunno how to explain it really.
Re:Top starcraft? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they make a decent single player campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't the better question be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't the better question be... (Score:1, Insightful)
OK, so some might dispute its status as a MMORPG since ANET calls it a co-op rather then multiplayer game, but it really doesn't matter if you're going for PvP anyway.
Oh, and no monthly fee either.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard (Score:3, Insightful)
Total Annihilation was our game of choice for lan parties and with good players it could take 3-4 hours in an eight player game to win. I think the relative simplicity of Starcraft was simply appealing to more players and games typically lasted less time. For many, more games played = more enjoyment.
You can argue sales numbers all day long, but does that make "The Sims" better than every other game in existance? Everything is subjective with terms like "better." I feel it's better than Starcraft, but eh, I've got them both. I enjoyed them both. I still play TA with friends. Havn't played Starcraft in years.
sacrilege! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
they focus on multi (Score:4, Insightful)
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...