|
On October 09 2024 13:59 ProTech1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:"[Tim] Morten and his team tried for years to kick off a new RTS, making all sorts of pitches and prototypes,"[...]"So in 2020, Morten and some of his team left to form Frost Giant (and recently released Stormgate)." From the way SG is going, it Looks like the execs judged it right... there may be (or may have been) minds at blizzard capable of figuring out the secret sauce needed for the big successful revival of AAA RTS, but clearly the lads now in charge of FGS weren't them. SG never had the money to make it work, not really sure why they even tried. Blizzard could put out a starcraft that was far worse than what it currently is, and it will still have a player base due to the name backing it. Frost giants simply doesn't have the reach or the money to be popular, and it reflects in the numbers. IMO if a game company wants to have a chance with a new RTS they're going to have to have to change the seoul south korea 1v1 model. I think RTS is dead and at this point the only way it will be revitalized is if RIOT games develops an RTS. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they're already trying to capitalize on that.
There is a large player base at Age of series. Consistent and across AoE 2 to 4 and mythology.
I think it's just way too hard to compete with a subpar RTS when the classic is that good and polished.
|
Northern Ireland26604 Posts
On October 09 2024 13:59 ProTech1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:"[Tim] Morten and his team tried for years to kick off a new RTS, making all sorts of pitches and prototypes,"[...]"So in 2020, Morten and some of his team left to form Frost Giant (and recently released Stormgate)." From the way SG is going, it Looks like the execs judged it right... there may be (or may have been) minds at blizzard capable of figuring out the secret sauce needed for the big successful revival of AAA RTS, but clearly the lads now in charge of FGS weren't them. SG never had the money to make it work, not really sure why they even tried. Blizzard could put out a starcraft that was far worse than what it currently is, and it will still have a player base due to the name backing it. Frost giants simply doesn't have the reach or the money to be popular, and it reflects in the numbers. IMO if a game company wants to have a chance with a new RTS they're going to have to have to change the seoul south korea 1v1 model. I think RTS is dead and at this point the only way it will be revitalized is if RIOT games develops an RTS. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they're already trying to capitalize on that.
They had a not inconsiderable budget, I’d argue they just haven’t used it well.
RTS is far from dead, what it does lack is a singular ‘killer app’ with a monster install base and regular player counts, of which SC2 was the last.
As some Redditor whose name I forget said, we’re basically in the ‘Silver Age’ of RTS gaming. There’s tons of quality titles of various different kinds. But you’ve also had the playerbase that used to just play games like SC or CnC diffusing to various splinter sub-genres as well. The ‘classic’ RTS that used to be the only game in town has diversified, you’ve 4X games, the Total War style, RTT games, even games like Battle Aces for people who just wanna get down to microing.
I do agree if we want that killer app style game, it may take someone like a Riot, Epic or some developer with absolutely huge reach to do it. I’d personally go with Valve, they have that thing Blizzard used to have where people would basically play any game they put out regardless of genre because ‘hey it’s a Blizzard game’. I think people underestimate how many people bought SC2 with little or no RTS exposure based on that alone.
If you want an actual basically dead, formerly huge genre it’s arena shooters
|
On October 09 2024 16:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 13:59 ProTech1 wrote:On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:"[Tim] Morten and his team tried for years to kick off a new RTS, making all sorts of pitches and prototypes,"[...]"So in 2020, Morten and some of his team left to form Frost Giant (and recently released Stormgate)." From the way SG is going, it Looks like the execs judged it right... there may be (or may have been) minds at blizzard capable of figuring out the secret sauce needed for the big successful revival of AAA RTS, but clearly the lads now in charge of FGS weren't them. SG never had the money to make it work, not really sure why they even tried. Blizzard could put out a starcraft that was far worse than what it currently is, and it will still have a player base due to the name backing it. Frost giants simply doesn't have the reach or the money to be popular, and it reflects in the numbers. IMO if a game company wants to have a chance with a new RTS they're going to have to have to change the seoul south korea 1v1 model. I think RTS is dead and at this point the only way it will be revitalized is if RIOT games develops an RTS. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they're already trying to capitalize on that. They had a not inconsiderable budget, I’d argue they just haven’t used it well. RTS is far from dead, what it does lack is a singular ‘killer app’ with a monster install base and regular player counts, of which SC2 was the last. As some Redditor whose name I forget said, we’re basically in the ‘Silver Age’ of RTS gaming. There’s tons of quality titles of various different kinds. But you’ve also had the playerbase that used to just play games like SC or CnC diffusing to various splinter sub-genres as well. The ‘classic’ RTS that used to be the only game in town has diversified, you’ve 4X games, the Total War style, RTT games, even games like Battle Aces for people who just wanna get down to microing. I do agree if we want that killer app style game, it may take someone like a Riot, Epic or some developer with absolutely huge reach to do it. I’d personally go with Valve, they have that thing Blizzard used to have where people would basically play any game they put out regardless of genre because ‘hey it’s a Blizzard game’. I think people underestimate how many people bought SC2 with little or no RTS exposure based on that alone. If you want an actual basically dead, formerly huge genre it’s arena shooters
I miss Unreal Tournament so much =(. If only Fortnite didn't cancel UT4's development
|
On October 09 2024 16:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 13:59 ProTech1 wrote:On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:"[Tim] Morten and his team tried for years to kick off a new RTS, making all sorts of pitches and prototypes,"[...]"So in 2020, Morten and some of his team left to form Frost Giant (and recently released Stormgate)." From the way SG is going, it Looks like the execs judged it right... there may be (or may have been) minds at blizzard capable of figuring out the secret sauce needed for the big successful revival of AAA RTS, but clearly the lads now in charge of FGS weren't them. SG never had the money to make it work, not really sure why they even tried. Blizzard could put out a starcraft that was far worse than what it currently is, and it will still have a player base due to the name backing it. Frost giants simply doesn't have the reach or the money to be popular, and it reflects in the numbers. IMO if a game company wants to have a chance with a new RTS they're going to have to have to change the seoul south korea 1v1 model. I think RTS is dead and at this point the only way it will be revitalized is if RIOT games develops an RTS. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they're already trying to capitalize on that. They had a not inconsiderable budget, I’d argue they just haven’t used it well. RTS is far from dead, what it does lack is a singular ‘killer app’ with a monster install base and regular player counts, of which SC2 was the last. As some Redditor whose name I forget said, we’re basically in the ‘Silver Age’ of RTS gaming. There’s tons of quality titles of various different kinds. But you’ve also had the playerbase that used to just play games like SC or CnC diffusing to various splinter sub-genres as well. The ‘classic’ RTS that used to be the only game in town has diversified, you’ve 4X games, the Total War style, RTT games, even games like Battle Aces for people who just wanna get down to microing. I do agree if we want that killer app style game, it may take someone like a Riot, Epic or some developer with absolutely huge reach to do it. I’d personally go with Valve, they have that thing Blizzard used to have where people would basically play any game they put out regardless of genre because ‘hey it’s a Blizzard game’. I think people underestimate how many people bought SC2 with little or no RTS exposure based on that alone. If you want an actual basically dead, formerly huge genre it’s arena shooters
Valve is busy with Deadlock, Half-Life 2,5 and CS2. I don't see them entering the RTS market at all. Epic has no business in that market. See alone the complications UE5 brings to the table when coupled with RTS mechanics.
Riot I can absolutely see expanding their portfolio into the strategy/ tactics market. The biggest fish by far in RTS waters is Microsoft/ Activision. They have the IP, the experience, the money... Here is to hoping they add Warcraft 4 to their announcements.
I mean they want to revive the Starcraft IP so why not get more out of the Warcraft IP as well. In this day and age my bet is that a WC4 would sell waaaaay better than a SC3: It is more known, it's got heroes and it's closer to the MOBA market. Hell I wouldn't mind if they go explicit a team game route with 3v3 and 5v5 modes
|
Northern Ireland26604 Posts
On October 09 2024 17:25 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 16:02 WombaT wrote:On October 09 2024 13:59 ProTech1 wrote:On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:"[Tim] Morten and his team tried for years to kick off a new RTS, making all sorts of pitches and prototypes,"[...]"So in 2020, Morten and some of his team left to form Frost Giant (and recently released Stormgate)." From the way SG is going, it Looks like the execs judged it right... there may be (or may have been) minds at blizzard capable of figuring out the secret sauce needed for the big successful revival of AAA RTS, but clearly the lads now in charge of FGS weren't them. SG never had the money to make it work, not really sure why they even tried. Blizzard could put out a starcraft that was far worse than what it currently is, and it will still have a player base due to the name backing it. Frost giants simply doesn't have the reach or the money to be popular, and it reflects in the numbers. IMO if a game company wants to have a chance with a new RTS they're going to have to have to change the seoul south korea 1v1 model. I think RTS is dead and at this point the only way it will be revitalized is if RIOT games develops an RTS. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they're already trying to capitalize on that. They had a not inconsiderable budget, I’d argue they just haven’t used it well. RTS is far from dead, what it does lack is a singular ‘killer app’ with a monster install base and regular player counts, of which SC2 was the last. As some Redditor whose name I forget said, we’re basically in the ‘Silver Age’ of RTS gaming. There’s tons of quality titles of various different kinds. But you’ve also had the playerbase that used to just play games like SC or CnC diffusing to various splinter sub-genres as well. The ‘classic’ RTS that used to be the only game in town has diversified, you’ve 4X games, the Total War style, RTT games, even games like Battle Aces for people who just wanna get down to microing. I do agree if we want that killer app style game, it may take someone like a Riot, Epic or some developer with absolutely huge reach to do it. I’d personally go with Valve, they have that thing Blizzard used to have where people would basically play any game they put out regardless of genre because ‘hey it’s a Blizzard game’. I think people underestimate how many people bought SC2 with little or no RTS exposure based on that alone. If you want an actual basically dead, formerly huge genre it’s arena shooters Valve is busy with Deadlock, Half-Life 2,5 and CS2. I don't see them entering the RTS market at all. Epic has no business in that market. See alone the complications UE5 brings to the table when coupled with RTS mechanics. Riot I can absolutely see expanding their portfolio into the strategy/ tactics market. The biggest fish by far in RTS waters is Microsoft/ Activision. They have the IP, the experience, the money... Here is to hoping they add Warcraft 4 to their announcements. I mean they want to revive the Starcraft IP so why not get more out of the Warcraft IP as well. In this day and age my bet is that a WC4 would sell waaaaay better than a SC3: It is more known, it's got heroes and it's closer to the MOBA market. Hell I wouldn't mind if they go explicit a team game route with 3v3 and 5v5 modes
Perhaps the Microsoft addition can move the needle, ActiBlizz had two of the biggest RTS franchises of all time and let them wither on the vine.
I’m not suggesting any of the aforementioned will, or should make an ambitious RTS, but people would play it if they did. People will play anything Valve put out because well, it’s Valve and they tend not to miss the mark.
I’ve long felt WC4 had an even greater sales ceiling than SC2, WC3 already laid the groundwork for MOBAs, is less mechanically demanding and perhaps is more ripe for capturing a wider audience. Add to that non-RTS playing WoW fiends who may fancy giving another game in that universe a shot
|
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful
|
On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful
I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me.
|
On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me.
They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before.
|
On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me.
WC3 was foundational for like the next 25 years of Warcraft lore and is pretty beloved by everyone, so that's an interesting take.
SC2.. yeah fair enough. I was always a fan of the gameplay, more so than WC3, but the story just got worse and worse.
I don't think either has much relevance, Blizzard is not who it was 20 years ago.
As for a Starcraft shooter, the world is still pretty rich, and there's plenty of characters people love that could feature. I don't think they would ever make an FPS game that you needed to play LotV to understand. And the game would likely play along the lines of Helldivers or SM2. Blizzard don't make games that are just stories or campaigns out of the box, they have to be online, live service, and monetised.
The fact they already have 2 Starcraft shooters on the shelf that were apparently good and fun, should in theory make development an easier one in terms of level design and gameplay at least. It would be strange to not reuse unreleased ideas.
|
On October 11 2024 08:24 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. WC3 was foundational for like the next 25 years of Warcraft lore and is pretty beloved by everyone, so that's an interesting take. SC2.. yeah fair enough. I was always a fan of the gameplay, more so than WC3, but the story just got worse and worse. I don't think either has much relevance, Blizzard is not who it was 20 years ago. As for a Starcraft shooter, the world is still pretty rich, and there's plenty of characters people love that could feature. I don't think they would ever make an FPS game that you needed to play LotV to understand. And the game would likely play along the lines of Helldivers or SM2. Blizzard don't make games that are just stories or campaigns out of the box, they have to be online, live service, and monetised. The fact they already have 2 Starcraft shooters on the shelf that were apparently good and fun, should in theory make development an easier one in terms of level design and gameplay at least. It would be strange to not reuse unreleased ideas.
How is SM2 monetized btw? Haven't played it
My guess is still they go with a Destiny kinda game because it has a grindable "endgame" which can easily be monetized additionally to cosmetics and stuff with Pay 2 Progress faster mechanics
|
I guess this is the time when people who have never played FPS games, play FPS games lol, that was my first thought.
I'm hoping it will be fun!
|
United States12242 Posts
On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before.
I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them).
|
On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them).
I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player.
But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"?
You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing.
Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch?
|
Northern Ireland26604 Posts
On October 12 2024 00:16 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them). I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player. But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"? You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing. Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch?
They strike me purely as arguments from a WC1/2 purist and not much more besides.
Maybe it’s a more widespread sentiment than I realise, personally I thought they did a good job expanding that world in 3.
The eco changed and heroes I imagine kept more people from switching than anything in the narrative
|
United States12242 Posts
On October 12 2024 00:16 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them). I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player. But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"? You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing. Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch?
I agree that War3 expanded the world in a favorable way. The expansion even at the time I thought took strange narrative turns that I didn't understand, but then you realize "ohhh Undead are a playable race in WoW, this is why this happened.... ohhh Blood Elves will be a playable race in WoW, that's why that sequence of events happened" so they make sense retrospectively.
But a lot of those other arguments are really just purist nonsense. Yeah maybe there was some weirdness here and there, yeah maybe some aspects were more silly (which paved the way for future WoW silliness, until the point where you as a cosmic hero are reduced to going on quests picking up literal poop), but the worldbuilding introduced in War3 massively contributed to the world becoming believable.
I wasn't dialed in to the discourse during the BW announcement and beta, so I don't know what things people hated back then, but I'm sure there was plenty! I mostly remember people hating the BW balance back in the day and thinking that DTs Lurkers and Corsairs destroyed the game balance irreparably.
|
I was a hardcore Warcraft fan and definitely don't remember there being widespread dissent about its storyline until WoW started to change things that were already set in stone. Same thing happened in SC2 where it seemed like the writing teams never played/watched the earlier RTS or had a basic understanding of the underlying lore. I'm mostly looking at you, Heart of the Swarm with your "primal zerg". *nerd scoffs*. But yeah, WC3 did a great job expanding and building on the lore whereas WoW subtly changed a lot of it, seemingly by mistake, which is a big difference.
|
On October 12 2024 04:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2024 00:16 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them). I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player. But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"? You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing. Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch? I agree that War3 expanded the world in a favorable way. The expansion even at the time I thought took strange narrative turns that I didn't understand, but then you realize "ohhh Undead are a playable race in WoW, this is why this happened.... ohhh Blood Elves will be a playable race in WoW, that's why that sequence of events happened" so they make sense retrospectively. But a lot of those other arguments are really just purist nonsense. Yeah maybe there was some weirdness here and there, yeah maybe some aspects were more silly (which paved the way for future WoW silliness, until the point where you as a cosmic hero are reduced to going on quests picking up literal poop), but the worldbuilding introduced in War3 massively contributed to the world becoming believable. I wasn't dialed in to the discourse during the BW announcement and beta, so I don't know what things people hated back then, but I'm sure there was plenty! I mostly remember people hating the BW balance back in the day and thinking that DTs Lurkers and Corsairs destroyed the game balance irreparably.
What on earth are you talking about? There is absolutely no way the Frozen Throne story was planned out with WoW in mind. Just.. 0. Draenei were completely retconned in the Burning Crusade (which is also when Blood Elves were retconned and became playable as Horde). And that is just one of many early WoW retcons.
Basically, if WC3 was built with the WoW story planned out, they wouldn't have had to retcon so much.
I'm not criticising either. The early WoW retcons put gameplay ahead of faithful following of the lore, and generally make sense from that perspective. And while the WC3 plot wasn't particularly novel, it was an amazing campaign, and the Frozen Throne was a very cool addition to the plot and the world.
That said, Blizzard went completely haywire somewhere around Pandaria for WoW, when they decide the established lore is more of a rough guideline than an actual history of Azeroth, and that's about when I stopped playing, so luckily I don't even know about the complete utter bollocks they made up for Sylvanas in Shadowlands 
|
On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2024 04:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 12 2024 00:16 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them). I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player. But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"? You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing. Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch? I agree that War3 expanded the world in a favorable way. The expansion even at the time I thought took strange narrative turns that I didn't understand, but then you realize "ohhh Undead are a playable race in WoW, this is why this happened.... ohhh Blood Elves will be a playable race in WoW, that's why that sequence of events happened" so they make sense retrospectively. But a lot of those other arguments are really just purist nonsense. Yeah maybe there was some weirdness here and there, yeah maybe some aspects were more silly (which paved the way for future WoW silliness, until the point where you as a cosmic hero are reduced to going on quests picking up literal poop), but the worldbuilding introduced in War3 massively contributed to the world becoming believable. I wasn't dialed in to the discourse during the BW announcement and beta, so I don't know what things people hated back then, but I'm sure there was plenty! I mostly remember people hating the BW balance back in the day and thinking that DTs Lurkers and Corsairs destroyed the game balance irreparably. What on earth are you talking about? There is absolutely no way the Frozen Throne story was planned out with WoW in mind. Just.. 0. Draenei were completely retconned in the Burning Crusade (which is also when Blood Elves were retconned and became playable as Horde). And that is just one of many early WoW retcons. Basically, if WC3 was built with the WoW story planned out, they wouldn't have had to retcon so much. I'm not criticising either. The early WoW retcons put gameplay ahead of faithful following of the lore, and generally make sense from that perspective. And while the WC3 plot wasn't particularly novel, it was an amazing campaign, and the Frozen Throne was a very cool addition to the plot and the world. That said, Blizzard went completely haywire somewhere around Pandaria for WoW, when they decide the established lore is more of a rough guideline than an actual history of Azeroth, and that's about when I stopped playing, so luckily I don't even know about the complete utter bollocks they made up for Sylvanas in Shadowlands
We know WoW needed various degrees of set up from War3, though it appears to be more broadstroke than actual in depth detail.
They needed War3 to be contained in its storyline such that WoW could serve as a starting point.
It seems clear they wanted Arthas to be the Lich King for future use, with Sylvanas forming her own Undead faction.
They needed Durotar to be formed which technically RoC managed, FT just confirmed it.
I'm still not convinced they intend for Illidan to survive, and just retconned things after the fact.
|
Northern Ireland26604 Posts
On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2024 04:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 12 2024 00:16 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 11 2024 04:17 Balnazza wrote:On October 11 2024 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 10 2024 12:40 goody153 wrote:
Zero expectations for current blizzard on the new game. They manage to screw up almost every IP they have including ones with great release.
And newer games ? Doubtful I have to agree. The way they butchered both Stacraft and Warcraft lore and universes flavors with WC3 and SC2 really makes me want to stay as far away as possible from any new entries in the franchise. Seeing Kerrigan become a space superheroe fighting Space Thanos with mega powers was enough for me. They butchered the Warcraft-Lore with WC3? That is...honestly a new take, never seen that before. I can remember a lot of people being annoyed in 2002 that the game was a rehash of the Kerrigan corruption arc, how they didn't like anything about Kalimdor (which iirc up to that point hadn't been invented, as "Azeroth" was the name of the so-called "Eastern Kingdoms" continent which comprised the entire world in War2), they thought the Night Elves were stupid, they thought the climactic Burning Legion engagement was stupid, they hated that Archimonde died to Wisps. And then the Frozen Throne expansion added a lot more weirdness and plot holes like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves, the Draenei (which we now know was all just a precursor to World of Warcraft). So it definitely had its detractors for its time, and I think it's only widely accepted now because WoW was such a departure and took it in increasingly wild directions that War3 looks tame by comparison (also, I think now there's a nostalgic element where children who played the campaign are now adults so it was a formative experience for them). I mean sure, WC3 was a clear departure from WC2. The world getting bigger (Azeroth switched from the name of a kingdom to the name of the continent to the name of the world lol), more races, the Horde becoming more nuanced and of course there actually being a "true story" instead of the option to decide the fate of the world as a player. But in all my years in the WC3 community I really can't remember there being much dissent over the campaign or people being unhappy with it. Would also strongly disagree that Arthas is a "rehash" of Kerrigan. Very different story arcs...Kerrigan doesn't even really has an arc, she just kind of becomes the QoB tbh. Also not quite sure why the Forsaken, Blood Elves or Draenei would be "plot holes"? You could also make the strong argument (though I love the WC2 campaign btw) that WC3 truely lifted Warcraft to a "real fantasy world" instead of just a Warhammer clone, helping it to become its own distinct thing. Makes me wonder if these are the reasons that circulated the BW community back then so they wouldn't switch? I agree that War3 expanded the world in a favorable way. The expansion even at the time I thought took strange narrative turns that I didn't understand, but then you realize "ohhh Undead are a playable race in WoW, this is why this happened.... ohhh Blood Elves will be a playable race in WoW, that's why that sequence of events happened" so they make sense retrospectively. But a lot of those other arguments are really just purist nonsense. Yeah maybe there was some weirdness here and there, yeah maybe some aspects were more silly (which paved the way for future WoW silliness, until the point where you as a cosmic hero are reduced to going on quests picking up literal poop), but the worldbuilding introduced in War3 massively contributed to the world becoming believable. I wasn't dialed in to the discourse during the BW announcement and beta, so I don't know what things people hated back then, but I'm sure there was plenty! I mostly remember people hating the BW balance back in the day and thinking that DTs Lurkers and Corsairs destroyed the game balance irreparably. What on earth are you talking about? There is absolutely no way the Frozen Throne story was planned out with WoW in mind. Just.. 0. Draenei were completely retconned in the Burning Crusade (which is also when Blood Elves were retconned and became playable as Horde). And that is just one of many early WoW retcons. Basically, if WC3 was built with the WoW story planned out, they wouldn't have had to retcon so much. I'm not criticising either. The early WoW retcons put gameplay ahead of faithful following of the lore, and generally make sense from that perspective. And while the WC3 plot wasn't particularly novel, it was an amazing campaign, and the Frozen Throne was a very cool addition to the plot and the world. That said, Blizzard went completely haywire somewhere around Pandaria for WoW, when they decide the established lore is more of a rough guideline than an actual history of Azeroth, and that's about when I stopped playing, so luckily I don't even know about the complete utter bollocks they made up for Sylvanas in Shadowlands
I’m just heartened the phrase ‘bollocks’ is gaining more traction outside of its traditional heartlands on here! Who said flinging out colloquialisms is as a waste of time?
Yeah agreed, I didn’t like many of the WC3 to WoW retcons at the time but they did certainly aid gameplay. Although why do Dranaei look completely different? I quite enjoyed their kinda distinctive, somewhat gross appearance in WC3
WC3 needed to make changes to enable what it was trying to do and jumping from 2 factions to 4. It also laid groundwork for WoW there certainly, I’ve yet to see evidence that it was the intent though.
UD come in and fit the whole slave of demons shtick which was previously the Orc’s domain, so you tweak the Orcs a bit accordingly. Then you add in the Night Elves to fit the classic fantasy elves trope, and give them some new continent to explain why they haven’t featured up til now. High elves get their own storyline to explain why they’re a subject peoples etc.
They’re all pretty decent changes IMO, the writing isn’t going to win Oscars but it’s pretty darn solid for an RTS campaign.
WC3 maybe didn’t have to succeed for Blizz to really pull the trigger on WoW, but there’s perhaps a level of failure that would have given them pause too. So I’m not sure Blizzard would be making potentially divisive changes if they didn’t think them good ideas for that title in isolation
|
WC3 TFT was released 1 year and four months before WoW came out, so I think we can say with absolute certainty that atleast TFT had some thoughts for WoW in mind. RoC probably not, considering that if RoC would have failed hard, WoW wouldn't be a thing.
But I don't think they had an absolute clear checklist, like "we need these 25 things in TFT for WoW". As someone said, it was more broadstroke. While they definetly set up things like the Forsaken, they also had some storylines just "being there". The "Faceless" for example were clearly not fully fleshed out in TFT to become a major plotpoint in WoW with C'thun. And the entire thing around the Trolls and Murlocs and the "Deep Sea Witch" basically never led to anything to my knowledge.
Probably the only part of the campaign that was "100% WoW" is the Founding of Durotar. Would explain why the 2nd and 3rd mission came later aswell.
I'm still not convinced they intend for Illidan to survive, and just retconned things after the fact.
I vaguely remember that even around TFT it was always hinted that Illidan was carried away and was now "Hiding in Outland, trying to keep the Portals closed". Btw Outlands, funfact: The german translation for Outlands changed from TFT to WoW. In TFT it was called "Fremdland" ("Stranger land"), in WoW it changed to "Scherbenwelt" ("Broken World").
Yeah agreed, I didn’t like many of the WC3 to WoW retcons at the time but they did certainly aid gameplay. Although why do Dranaei look completely different? I quite enjoyed their kinda distinctive, somewhat gross appearance in WC3
The Draenei we encounter in WC3 are those who stayed on Draenor/Outlands. In the Release Trailer for Black Temple we can see that the Draenei who stayed slowly were corrupted by the demonic influence, like a sickness. That is why Akama and co. look so transformed, while the Draenei we can play (aka. the ones on Azeroth) look still healthy. And the new look was probably necessary to implement that the Draenei and the Eredar are the same people - they atleast need to look-alike. If you would have told me in WC3 that Akama and Archimonde are from the same species, I would have cursed at you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
