|
Patrick Wyatt, co-founder of ArenaNet, COO of the company developing TERA, and one of the early programmers at Blizzard wrote a great post (first of a series) on the early days of Blizzard and the development of Warcraft I. There's a lot of cool tidbits on the inspiration and design of Warcraft I, the origin of the name "Blizzard", and the old guard at Blizzard (he worked on WCI, WCII, and Diablo I). He also discusses why pre-SC2 Blizzard RTS games had limited unit selection, including this key quote about Warcraft I:
"we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once."
One could argue that he and the early team at Blizzard are the origin of the debate on this now controversial topic. While the consensus was that single unit selection a la Dune was too limited, the team settled on limited selection even though Patrick had coded for unlimited selection at first. It's interesting to note that the first game to have unlimited selection was the original Command and Conquer (he notes that he may write a post on the consequences of this decision).
Finally, there are some details on the key people at early Blizzard, including current CEO Mike Morhaime, who wrote the original modem code for multiplayer in WCI.
http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1
|
Super interesting post.
People saying that unit selection in BW was capped to 12 only for technical reasons and not by design can shut their mouth now.
Thanks a lot for sharing.
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing this is sure to be quite interesting.
|
On July 26 2012 13:26 trifecta wrote:
"we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once."
Hah! see I told you guys [edit: that it was a design decision not a limitation] but you wouldn't listen! now I have proof!
|
That was really interesting, can't wait for the next part
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 13:38 endy wrote:
Super interesting post.
People saying that unit selection in BW was capped to 12 only for technical reasons and not by design can shut their mouth now.
Thanks a lot for sharing.
Of course it was a decision on the design team. Aoe 2 had a huge unit selection range and was in the same era. Very interesting read though.
|
On July 26 2012 14:18 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:38 endy wrote:
Super interesting post.
People saying that unit selection in BW was capped to 12 only for technical reasons and not by design can shut their mouth now.
Thanks a lot for sharing. Of course it was a decision on the design team. Aoe 2 had a huge unit selection range and was in the same era. Very interesting read though.
It seemed obvious to me as well, but I also heard countless times that unlimited selection had not been implemented in BW because of technical limitations...
|
Nice, thanks for providing the link for this!
|
I've honestly been waiting for the transition to Starcraft 2 for a long time, simply because I want to see the KeSPA pros elevate the game to a new level.
But now that it's happening, more and more I am thinking, "why does this game have to die...?"
|
Awesome read! I can't wait for the next parts.
|
This is hilarious. The typical argument about unit selection being a technical limitation and having nothing to do with gameplay proven to be a lie.
|
On July 27 2012 07:46 Grend wrote:
This is hilarious. The typical argument about unit selection being a technical limitation and having nothing to do with gameplay proven to be a lie.
Oh god, this. QED. Game set match. Checkmate, the dominos have fallen like a house of cards.
|
THANK fucking god for this. I want to go back a few years in time and RAM this down the throats of the people who were saying that 12-unit groups were 'outdated'.
|
too bad the greatness is not as prevalent in its sequel 
|
It's interesting how they knew the pit falls of unlimited selection so long ago, yet that message seems to have been lost in the current generation of rts games.
On July 26 2012 14:18 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:38 endy wrote:
Super interesting post.
People saying that unit selection in BW was capped to 12 only for technical reasons and not by design can shut their mouth now.
Thanks a lot for sharing. Of course it was a decision on the design team. Aoe 2 had a huge unit selection range and was in the same era. Very interesting read though.
Actually, AOE 1 was released closer to SC1 and it had a 24 or 25 unit selection cap (depending on how you select the units). Numerous other rts games I've played have had caps as well such as Empire Earth and Rise of Nations. Newer games always had larger selection limits.
|
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago.
|
On July 27 2012 16:51 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago.
This couldn't be any more accurate. Blizzard have undoubtedly gone backwards in terms of quality/innovation as the years have gone by. I could give many examples but the two that stick out the most (which were executed far better in the past) are the absolute attrocity that was D3 and how BNet 2.0 was allowed to exist in comparison to what was offered in WC3/SC:BW.
|
On July 27 2012 16:51 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago.
Yup. They are on the stock exchange now. Gotta make dem $$$ now right?
|
|
|
thanks for posting. was waiting for part 2 
|
WatCom came from my alma mater
|
On the birth of hotkeys
+ Show Spoiler +A design idea much discussed but never implemented was “formations”, where units would stick together on the battlefield. Formations are difficult to implement so the feature was chopped from the spec.
Some of the complexities that prevented implementation: units in formation all move at the same speed so slow units don’t get left behind — this created programming complexity. Formations need the ability to rotate — or “wheel” in military parlance — so that a formation heading north comprised of infantry carrying pikes with archers following behind can turn as a group to face an enemy detachment approaching from the east, with the archers still lined up behind the protective wall of infantry — this created user interface complexity. Given enough time we could have completed the feature, but we needed the development time for more basic features.
As a stand-in, I did implement “numbered group selection”. A user would select a group of units and press the Ctrl (control) key plus a number key (1-4). Those unit-groupings would be remembered so it would be possible to later re-select those units by pressing the number key (1-4) by itself. But those units would move independently even though selected as a group.
|
Ya, that would have been cool if they implemented formations and formations movement.
|
On July 27 2012 16:51 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago.
Duh? Activision owns Blizzard. And Activision is owned, for now, by that French megacorporation. The fact that the head of SC2 is a C&C transplant with a degree in English literature should have also warned us all.
Unfortunately making good games is not profitable.
|
Very interesting. The early days of video gaming are always fun to read about. It's a lot like reading about colonial days in that they both have horrendously bad crap that is still similar to what we have today, in the same way that the stone spears of the cavemen are similar to the finely crafted spears of the Roman legions.
|
On July 27 2012 08:00 sc4k wrote:
THANK fucking god for this. I want to go back a few years in time and RAM this down the throats of the people who were saying that 12-unit groups were 'outdated'.
#2
|
o.0 I thought the 12 units thing was technical..
Now thinking about it, RA never had a cap on selection back then did it?
I remember a tasteless post from way back where he said he spoke to browder and there was still heated debates on whether to allow mbs an unlimited unit selection..so they did consider it as a tactical choice.
Just reading through...they actually had no lan,no source control, and had to merge code manually, cant even think about it now :o
|
On July 27 2012 16:51 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago.
Well yeah. People often have that odd idea that it's companies that create games, which isn't entirely true. Company is just a logo/brand, but it's people who work there that actually implement their ideas.
Over time a lot of core Blizzard and Blizzard North people responsible for the early games left the studio. Patrick Wyatt, Mike O'Brain, Jeff Strain, Max and Erich Shaefer, David Brevik, Mark Kern, Eric Flannum...and many many more left Blizzard around WoW release. If you look at the credits for the older Blizzard games you will see those names constantly appearing in various roles, mostly as either project leads or lead programmers that created core features (B.Net programming, SC Editor, MPQ format, etc.)
It's hard to be same company when so many people changed over the years and the new ones, who now lead the current generation of Blizzard games worked for completely different companies back in those times.
|
CnC had a ~256 selection limit.
|
He just posted a new essay on the long road to shipping starcraft, the birth of the "when it's done" philosophy, and the technical difficulties of writing the game. He also previews a future post where he will address the difficulties of coding the path finding in starcraft (dat infamous dragoon pathing?). Recommended reading:
http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-starcraft
|
Yet another cool read
Diablo, savior of Starcraft
|
On July 26 2012 14:28 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:18 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 26 2012 13:38 endy wrote:
Super interesting post.
People saying that unit selection in BW was capped to 12 only for technical reasons and not by design can shut their mouth now.
Thanks a lot for sharing. Of course it was a decision on the design team. Aoe 2 had a huge unit selection range and was in the same era. Very interesting read though. It seemed obvious to me as well, but I also heard countless times that unlimited selection had not been implemented in BW because of technical limitations...
When? I don't recall ever hearing about technical limitations. I remember discussions about the supply cap, but not much else. ._.
|
I think it's important to keep in mind how much different the game industry as a whole is (rather than just Blizzard).
Due to the advancement of the technology in general, the idea of a few programmers cobbling together a masterpiece isn't really going to fly in a market dominated by these new high tech fancy graphics games. The amount of resources and effort needed to make a Starcraft II is vastly different than what went into Brood War.
I'm not saying that this is for the best. A notable casualty to this modern method of making games is the aspect of creativity. When you were talking about a dozen programmers putting together, you could afford to be creative and take risks. When you're trying to finance a project employing a hundred or more programmers and artists, you can't afford to take risks the same way.
It is interesting however to see how solo and small group programming is making a comeback with the rise of flash games, which do exhibit all manner of creativity. Gamers and and their love of these quirky low tech games may just reinject some of that much needed creativity back in the gaming scene.
But the real point I"m trying to make is that Blizzard hasn't gone off in a corporate direction, beholden to shareholders, they are simply responding to a systematic change in the way games are made.
|
"we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once."
Lol so I guess limited unit selection really is a feature. who knew? :p
|
I'd still rather prefer unlimited selection. There's better ways to encourage tactical control than forcing control group unit limits. Static formations/pathing for example.
|
On August 23 2012 22:50 SynthFae wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 16:51 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I guess this article also proves that we may as well treat Blizzard as a completely different company to Blizzard of 10 years ago. Well yeah. People often have that odd idea that it's companies that create games, which isn't entirely true. Company is just a logo/brand, but it's people who work there that actually implement their ideas. Over time a lot of core Blizzard and Blizzard North people responsible for the early games left the studio. Patrick Wyatt, Mike O'Brain, Jeff Strain, Max and Erich Shaefer, David Brevik, Mark Kern, Eric Flannum...and many many more left Blizzard around WoW release. If you look at the credits for the older Blizzard games you will see those names constantly appearing in various roles, mostly as either project leads or lead programmers that created core features (B.Net programming, SC Editor, MPQ format, etc.) It's hard to be same company when so many people changed over the years and the new ones, who now lead the current generation of Blizzard games worked for completely different companies back in those times.
Not only that but they were much smaller. When it comes to creative the small studios are always the ones you should pay the most attention to because they're doing incredibly things. Then someone buys them. x-x
On September 13 2012 23:58 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +"we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once." Lol so I guess limited unit selection really is a feature. who knew? :p
I have to keep telling people it was by design and not antiquated as so many are led to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
