|
United States33175 Posts
https://www.ign.com/articles/blizzard-reportedly-working-on-a-starcraft-shooter-with-ex-far-cry-chief-dan-hay-at-the-helm
According to games journalist Jason Schreier, Blizzard is working on a shooter in the StarCraft setting. Making an appearance on IGN's Unlocked podcast to promote his upcoming book on the history of Blizzard, Schreier said of the shooter "If it's not cancelled—that's a strong—this is Blizzard, after all. And their history with StarCraft shooters is not good. Yes, [the StarCraft shooter] is the project that, as far as I knew, was in development, or at least as of the time that I wrote this book, was in development. Which is, yes, they are working on a StarCraft shooter. StarCraft is not dead at Blizzard."
|
Johto4909 Posts
Let's hope this is actually good, also that it doesn't end up being another SC: Ghost indeed.
|
|
|
Heh, I believe that when it's here. While nice that Nova got a role in the DLC there was some fun potential for a mid 00s stealth shooter ala Splinter Cell. Who can say wtf it will be now.
|
Canada8988 Posts
I can't say I'm particularly hopefull that anything will come out of this, but if there really is a game I'll welcome it with open arms.
|
Are we sure that this is about a post-Ares shooter? The Battlefield-style SC shooter was only completely cancelled a couple years ago.
|
On September 28 2024 01:56 NovusLex wrote:
Are we sure that this is about a post-Ares shooter? The Battlefield-style SC shooter was only completely cancelled a couple years ago.
I think I've read somewhere that this specifically means a shooter post SC: Ghost and Ares
|
What the, i didn't hear about this ares shooter either
Either way, surprising but i guess if Blizzard is trying to make revenue then shooters seem like a safe genre...
Curious what direction the gameplay will lean towards. Battlefield, Halo, or something more like Fortnite/Apex, etc.
And will it just be Terrans I'm guessing?
|
Man, I'd love it if this comes to fruition. Unlike with SC Ghost, Blizzard has actual shooter experience now. Also I don't think Ghost was being developed in-house if I remember correctly?
Anyways, the hopium is real.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 28 2024 03:14 Kitai wrote:
Man, I'd love it if this comes to fruition. Unlike with SC Ghost, Blizzard has actual shooter experience now. Also I don't think Ghost was being developed in-house if I remember correctly?
Anyways, the hopium is real.
Yeah Ghost was a Swingin Ape Studios project, it wasn't in-house at Blizzard. Personally I thought the Ghost shooting feel was pretty good and the multiplayer was fun, but reportedly it was canceled because the single player component was thin and boring. Modern shooters are also an extremely mature genre at this point, so they have big shoes to fill.
|
I'll believe it when I see it..
|
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing.
|
United States97276 Posts
|
I am content if it is just a straight up copy of Helldivers, that's what a SC shooter should have been something like that or Space Marine
That said, I am not buying anything Blizzard until they fix WarCraft 3. To get me back, they need to do an unprofitable passion project and come back successful fixing WarCraft 3 before I bother with their other products
|
|
|
On September 28 2024 06:53 ztrgfhwetrw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 06:10 Kantuva wrote:
I am content if it is just a straight up copy of Helldivers, that's what a SC shooter should have been something like that or Space Marine
That said, I am not buying anything Blizzard until they fix WarCraft 3. To get me back, they need to do an unprofitable passion project and come back successful fixing WarCraft 3 before I bother with their other products Grubby Looks good to me. How is it not playable?
The community put a lot of work into WC3 with W3Champions. We also always use the classic graphics over the updated ones, as they are clearer (and the newer graphics still have some technical issues). There also have been bugs in the game for months, like the game constantly crashing during the campaign (ironically a bug that was not in the release of Reforged but came up later).
I don't think Reforged is an as big disaster as people claim, but the expectations were a lot higher and Blizzard screwed up a lot...sadly
|
|
|
On September 28 2024 07:42 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 06:53 ztrgfhwetrw wrote:On September 28 2024 06:10 Kantuva wrote:
I am content if it is just a straight up copy of Helldivers, that's what a SC shooter should have been something like that or Space Marine
That said, I am not buying anything Blizzard until they fix WarCraft 3. To get me back, they need to do an unprofitable passion project and come back successful fixing WarCraft 3 before I bother with their other products Grubby Looks good to me. How is it not playable? The community put a lot of work into WC3 with W3Champions. We also always use the classic graphics over the updated ones, as they are clearer (and the newer graphics still have some technical issues). There also have been bugs in the game for months, like the game constantly crashing during the campaign (ironically a bug that was not in the release of Reforged but came up later). I don't think Reforged is an as big disaster as people claim, but the expectations were a lot higher and Blizzard screwed up a lot...sadly
I've tried replaying campaigns and the number of random bugs is astonishing, like the orb of fire quest not triggering, some acolyte retrievals not triggering, rexxar's maps are completely broken
|
I believe a few months back (after Helldivers got popular) there was talk of Blizzard hiring for some kind of dive/extraction shooter along those lines. It would make sense if they used their existing IP in Starcraft.
Plus, they like to reuse assets from cancelled projects anyway.
|
Could be really fun and exciting. If its successful, I imagine a surge in SC2 hype, and also SC3 teases/potential. StarCraft has the goods folks
|
On September 28 2024 10:18 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 07:42 Balnazza wrote:On September 28 2024 06:53 ztrgfhwetrw wrote:On September 28 2024 06:10 Kantuva wrote:
I am content if it is just a straight up copy of Helldivers, that's what a SC shooter should have been something like that or Space Marine
That said, I am not buying anything Blizzard until they fix WarCraft 3. To get me back, they need to do an unprofitable passion project and come back successful fixing WarCraft 3 before I bother with their other products Grubby Looks good to me. How is it not playable? The community put a lot of work into WC3 with W3Champions. We also always use the classic graphics over the updated ones, as they are clearer (and the newer graphics still have some technical issues). There also have been bugs in the game for months, like the game constantly crashing during the campaign (ironically a bug that was not in the release of Reforged but came up later). I don't think Reforged is an as big disaster as people claim, but the expectations were a lot higher and Blizzard screwed up a lot...sadly I've tried replaying campaigns and the number of random bugs is astonishing, like the orb of fire quest not triggering, some acolyte retrievals not triggering, rexxar's maps are completely broken
Considering the staggering amount of bugs Reforged has and had I won't say "that's a You-Problem". Just that I've played through the campaign three times in Reforged and only the 2nd run was plagued by bugs (crashes, apparently connected to the camera, mainly).
I hope you get the chance to replay it some day, because not only is the WC3-campaign the best thing that ever happened, I think the very few updates they did in Reforged (three maps to be exact) are amazing
|
I would love a StarCraft Mass Effect game.
|
My guess is it's a Vermintide clone and your class choices are Marine, Ghost, Firebat, Medic, and Marauder
|
On September 28 2024 13:22 Li_Xin wrote:
I would love a StarCraft Mass Effect game.
with a Jason Patric/Jim Raynor story line arc similar to the 2003 movie Narc.
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On September 28 2024 04:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing.
I wasn’t really sure what type of game it was going to be. A shooter as a ghost, or a stealth game as a ghost?
The former I was always meh about, the second would fit the unit’s role way better and could have kicked arse.
While seemingly every action game ever made nowadays has a stealth section, or stealth mechanics there’s still not a huge amount of really good dedicated stealthers.
I’m a bit meh on the prospect of an SC shooter but they could always knock it out of the park. I suppose it’s something positive that since Microsoft have entered the fray there’s a new project with the IP, and the campaigns are coming to GamePass as well
|
Lol, first thing I did was check the date of this thread.
Not getting my hopes up, I’ve been hurt before :p.
Still, could happen. Maybe next years blizzcon we’ll hear something.
|
Wouldn't be suprised if this was Helldivers in a SC skin.
|
Finland926 Posts
On September 28 2024 14:20 StasisField wrote:
My guess is it's a Vermintide clone and your class choices are Marine, Ghost, Firebat, Medic, and Marauder
But that might not be such a bad thing. Vermintide's core is still pretty good, I'd say.
|
will this be the big showcase at the next blizzcon? I sure hope so. we'll know probably a month or two before if blizzards starts mentioning starcraft to hint something is coming.
|
Please make it a Alien vs Predator type game, with the 3 campaigns. I don't care what they do for multiplayer after that. But the SC universe would clearly fit that pattern so well (protoss for predators, zerg for aliens, and the terrans~)
|
On September 28 2024 23:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 04:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing. I wasn’t really sure what type of game it was going to be. A shooter as a ghost, or a stealth game as a ghost? The former I was always meh about, the second would fit the unit’s role way better and could have kicked arse. While seemingly every action game ever made nowadays has a stealth section, or stealth mechanics there’s still not a huge amount of really good dedicated stealthers. I’m a bit meh on the prospect of an SC shooter but they could always knock it out of the park. I suppose it’s something positive that since Microsoft have entered the fray there’s a new project with the IP, and the campaigns are coming to GamePass as well
I think my issue is the Protaganist Terran vs Antagonist Zerg narrative doesn't do much for my Protoss/Zerg heart.
I dunno, just give me a SC set in Hearthstone, that's enough for me.
|
On September 29 2024 23:28 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 23:01 WombaT wrote:On September 28 2024 04:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing. I wasn’t really sure what type of game it was going to be. A shooter as a ghost, or a stealth game as a ghost? The former I was always meh about, the second would fit the unit’s role way better and could have kicked arse. While seemingly every action game ever made nowadays has a stealth section, or stealth mechanics there’s still not a huge amount of really good dedicated stealthers. I’m a bit meh on the prospect of an SC shooter but they could always knock it out of the park. I suppose it’s something positive that since Microsoft have entered the fray there’s a new project with the IP, and the campaigns are coming to GamePass as well I think my issue is the Protaganist Terran vs Antagonist Zerg narrative doesn't do much for my Protoss/Zerg heart. I dunno, just give me a SC set in Hearthstone, that's enough for me.
The Dark Protoss story line in SC1 was epic. Then they added a Dark Protoss unit in the expansion.. to continue the story. Pure genius. The Dark Protoss rejected the new testament Khala.  Man, that was sweet.
Best story telling ever.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 28 2024 23:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 04:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing. I wasn’t really sure what type of game it was going to be. A shooter as a ghost, or a stealth game as a ghost? The former I was always meh about, the second would fit the unit’s role way better and could have kicked arse. While seemingly every action game ever made nowadays has a stealth section, or stealth mechanics there’s still not a huge amount of really good dedicated stealthers. I’m a bit meh on the prospect of an SC shooter but they could always knock it out of the park. I suppose it’s something positive that since Microsoft have entered the fray there’s a new project with the IP, and the campaigns are coming to GamePass as well
It was basically Splinter Cell, but as a Ghost named Nova. You had the obvious Cloak stealth mechanic, but you also hacked into terminals, subdued or assassinated targets during your infiltration, and had various upgrades to unlock. I think this was a big reason Blizzard canceled the game: Splinter Cell was already doing everything they wanted to do, but they were first to market and they did it better (it was announced only 2 months before Splinter Cell released). I think Metroid Prime also gets an honorable mention since it was released at the same time as Splinter Cell and did the other half of what Ghost aimed to do.
The multiplayer was a different beast entirely and that was more class-based and shooter-focused, kind of like C&C Renegade (released 6 months before Ghost was announced).
I think if Ghost did actually release, it wouldn't have made much of a splash beyond the always-amazing cinematics.
|
There's also a wealth of Halo titles that tread ground similar to what you'd expect of a Starcraft shooter, as well as a good few WH40k titles that cover that ground.
'Starcraft shooter' excites me insofar as it'll be cool to explore the SC universe on a different scale and see things like the inside of a battleship or xelnaga temple... but if it never comes out I won't be too upset, because I'm expecting it to be a soulless game. It'd be nice if we got something on par with Halo 1/2, but... I'm not holding out hope.
|
I believe it when I'm playing it.
We've been here before... twice actually
|
I hope they devs lean heavily into fun gameplay and story mode over online competitive.
|
|
|
On October 01 2024 10:31 Akimbo wrote:
StarCraft ghost
Ghost of StarCraft ghost
|
|
|
On September 30 2024 06:43 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2024 23:01 WombaT wrote:On September 28 2024 04:08 Cricketer12 wrote:
Am I the only one who never found SC Ghost particularly compelling as a concept even if it *had* come out?
Like if this is real it's potentially interesting...but I am...unconvinced, which is to say nothing if the fact this likely means nothing and will likely continue to mean nothing. I wasn’t really sure what type of game it was going to be. A shooter as a ghost, or a stealth game as a ghost? The former I was always meh about, the second would fit the unit’s role way better and could have kicked arse. While seemingly every action game ever made nowadays has a stealth section, or stealth mechanics there’s still not a huge amount of really good dedicated stealthers. I’m a bit meh on the prospect of an SC shooter but they could always knock it out of the park. I suppose it’s something positive that since Microsoft have entered the fray there’s a new project with the IP, and the campaigns are coming to GamePass as well It was basically Splinter Cell, but as a Ghost named Nova. You had the obvious Cloak stealth mechanic, but you also hacked into terminals, subdued or assassinated targets during your infiltration, and had various upgrades to unlock. I think this was a big reason Blizzard canceled the game: Splinter Cell was already doing everything they wanted to do, but they were first to market and they did it better (it was announced only 2 months before Splinter Cell released). I think Metroid Prime also gets an honorable mention since it was released at the same time as Splinter Cell and did the other half of what Ghost aimed to do. The multiplayer was a different beast entirely and that was more class-based and shooter-focused, kind of like C&C Renegade (released 6 months before Ghost was announced). I think if Ghost did actually release, it wouldn't have made much of a splash beyond the always-amazing cinematics.
A new C&C Renegade would be awesome! In a Starcraft universe even more so!
|
|
|
People are still believing in Blizzard? lol Like, even if this won't be a canceled project, it's likely gonna be some life-service trash with a very mediocre game as a basis. I would be very surprised if this would turn out to be a single player or coop experience.
On September 28 2024 01:49 argonautdice wrote:
Call of Duty: Tarsonis
My head turned that into Call of Duty: Artosis...
|
Curb your enthusiasm guys.
This is the post activision, post Microsoft cleaning house blizzard.
|
On October 01 2024 19:00 iloveav wrote:
Curb your enthusiasm guys.
This is the post activision, post Microsoft cleaning house blizzard.
I actually have more faith in Microsoft now than blizzard pre-merger
|
yeah Microsoft certainly has the deep coffers to take a risk on a game like this, especially with it having extremely strong IP that would likely drive enough interest to make it worth producing. old Blizzard barely took any risks and favored appeasing stockholders and executives over taking creative leaps.
|
Hope the all that is holy this is true, so ready for a new stracraft title.
|
I will believe it when I see it. but sc universe is pretty cool, no way they should waste the IP
|
I'm not interested in any game in any genre that uses microtransactions for anything that isn't 100% cosmetic, or even microtransactions (like "battle passes") that speed your progress toward anything that isn't purely cosmetic. I refuse to play such a game.
If this game meets those extremely basic criteria, I will probably buy it.
|
Only one request:
Make it good.
|
Sure, let's use the starcraft franchise for other genres, since people play it mainly for the story and the characters...
|
On October 07 2024 17:58 DevilDriver wrote:
Sure, let's use the starcraft franchise for other genres, since people play it mainly for the story and the characters...
...they do.
Co-Op, campaign and arcade have larger playerbases than ladder
|
On October 07 2024 23:27 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2024 17:58 DevilDriver wrote:
Sure, let's use the starcraft franchise for other genres, since people play it mainly for the story and the characters... ...they do. Co-Op, campaign and arcade have larger playerbases than ladder
Besides my close friends, everyone I've met that also has played starcraft just played the campaign and called it there
|
On October 07 2024 17:58 DevilDriver wrote:
Sure, let's use the starcraft franchise for other genres, since people play it mainly for the story and the characters...
God yeah, it turrned out real shit for warcraft.
+ Show Spoiler +Unironically WoW's success is why we'll likely never see wc4
|
"[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.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:Show nested quote +"[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.
A good first ingredient to that sauce is the enormous budget SC2 had, if we're honest.
|
On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:Show nested quote +"[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.
It is really painful to say this, but Blizzard is just a magical space. Or it used to be, whatever. And yes, I know, the working condition at Blizzard were awful, even when Mike Morhaime was running the show. But something at that place just clicked and allowed them to throw out one banger after the other.
Whenever "Ex-Blizzard" gets together and tries to copy their success, it fails and sucks. And it usually comes down to the fact that the biggest marketing factor is always "Blizzard". The entire marketing-campaign for Stormgate was and still is "we are ex-Blizzard and we will honor all the great RTS!". But the product is so unfinished and soulles, the only thing the marketing does is for me to want to play SC2 and WC3 again.
I think the only ex-Blizzard guy with huge success that I can think of from the top of my head is Thor/PirateSoftware, but he also did not try to copy Blizzard and did something completly different, seperating himself.
But that being said: I think there is a market for RTS for sure, but a company like Blizzard doesn't need a market, they need a banger. And I don't see an RTS dominating the Esports-scene soon. People love team-games, to play and to watch. Just look at the EWC, which basically had every big Esport present: The only four 1v1 games were SC2, FIFA/EAFC and two Fighting Games which are basically just there for the asian market. Everything else was Team-based.
Then you would need an RTS that is easy to learn, hard to master. Something that is intuitive and easy to get into, but has the infinite skill-ceiling of Starcraft. So you would essentially need to combine WC3 and SC2 in the perfect way. And if that wasn't complicated enough, you would also need a banger-campaign to draw in the singleplayer-guys, but also create enough hype.
And while you do all that, you also need a financial model that is along the lines of LoL, meaning it generates the company lots of money, while not really impacting the playing experience, so it doesn't become P2W. Plus I'm probably forgetting three or four more big problems to conquer.
|
|
|
On October 08 2024 10:43 Balnazza 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. It is really painful to say this, but Blizzard is just a magical space. Or it used to be, whatever. And yes, I know, the working condition at Blizzard were awful, even when Mike Morhaime was running the show. But something at that place just clicked and allowed them to throw out one banger after the other. Whenever "Ex-Blizzard" gets together and tries to copy their success, it fails and sucks. And it usually comes down to the fact that the biggest marketing factor is always "Blizzard". The entire marketing-campaign for Stormgate was and still is "we are ex-Blizzard and we will honor all the great RTS!". But the product is so unfinished and soulles, the only thing the marketing does is for me to want to play SC2 and WC3 again. I think the only ex-Blizzard guy with huge success that I can think of from the top of my head is Thor/PirateSoftware, but he also did not try to copy Blizzard and did something completly different, seperating himself. But that being said: I think there is a market for RTS for sure, but a company like Blizzard doesn't need a market, they need a banger. And I don't see an RTS dominating the Esports-scene soon. People love team-games, to play and to watch. Just look at the EWC, which basically had every big Esport present: The only four 1v1 games were SC2, FIFA/EAFC and two Fighting Games which are basically just there for the asian market. Everything else was Team-based. Then you would need an RTS that is easy to learn, hard to master. Something that is intuitive and easy to get into, but has the infinite skill-ceiling of Starcraft. So you would essentially need to combine WC3 and SC2 in the perfect way. And if that wasn't complicated enough, you would also need a banger-campaign to draw in the singleplayer-guys, but also create enough hype. And while you do all that, you also need a financial model that is along the lines of LoL, meaning it generates the company lots of money, while not really impacting the playing experience, so it doesn't become P2W. Plus I'm probably forgetting three or four more big problems to conquer.
And because of all those things I'm pretty sure the new game is going to be Starcraft: Destiny!
or Destiny 3: Starcraft
|
On October 08 2024 18:40 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 10:43 Balnazza 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. It is really painful to say this, but Blizzard is just a magical space. Or it used to be, whatever. And yes, I know, the working condition at Blizzard were awful, even when Mike Morhaime was running the show. But something at that place just clicked and allowed them to throw out one banger after the other. Whenever "Ex-Blizzard" gets together and tries to copy their success, it fails and sucks. And it usually comes down to the fact that the biggest marketing factor is always "Blizzard". The entire marketing-campaign for Stormgate was and still is "we are ex-Blizzard and we will honor all the great RTS!". But the product is so unfinished and soulles, the only thing the marketing does is for me to want to play SC2 and WC3 again. I think the only ex-Blizzard guy with huge success that I can think of from the top of my head is Thor/PirateSoftware, but he also did not try to copy Blizzard and did something completly different, seperating himself. But that being said: I think there is a market for RTS for sure, but a company like Blizzard doesn't need a market, they need a banger. And I don't see an RTS dominating the Esports-scene soon. People love team-games, to play and to watch. Just look at the EWC, which basically had every big Esport present: The only four 1v1 games were SC2, FIFA/EAFC and two Fighting Games which are basically just there for the asian market. Everything else was Team-based. Then you would need an RTS that is easy to learn, hard to master. Something that is intuitive and easy to get into, but has the infinite skill-ceiling of Starcraft. So you would essentially need to combine WC3 and SC2 in the perfect way. And if that wasn't complicated enough, you would also need a banger-campaign to draw in the singleplayer-guys, but also create enough hype. And while you do all that, you also need a financial model that is along the lines of LoL, meaning it generates the company lots of money, while not really impacting the playing experience, so it doesn't become P2W. Plus I'm probably forgetting three or four more big problems to conquer. And because of all those things I'm pretty sure the new game is going to be Starcraft: Destiny! or Destiny 3: Starcraft
Odd, I thought Destiny was a girl's name.
|
On October 08 2024 04:34 sophisticated wrote:Show nested quote +"[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.
|
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 Ireland24310 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 Ireland24310 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 States12235 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 Ireland24310 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 States12235 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 Ireland24310 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...
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 13 2024 21:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote: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
The Draenei retcon is easily explained: nobody wanted to play as the ugliest race in the game, particularly not among the aesthetically-oriented Alliance.
And don't forget that WoW started development in 1999, with its announcement in 2001 (War3 began in 1998). The storyline for War3 surely influenced the geography and set pieces for WoW, but the existence of WoW in turn imposed certain demands for the Frozen Throne storyline.
|
On October 13 2024 23:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2024 21:47 WombaT wrote:On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote: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 The Draenei retcon is easily explained: nobody wanted to play as the ugliest race in the game, particularly not among the aesthetically-oriented Alliance. And don't forget that WoW started development in 1999, with its announcement in 2001 (War3 began in 1998). The storyline for War3 surely influenced the geography and set pieces for WoW, but the existence of WoW in turn imposed certain demands for the Frozen Throne storyline.
And both incorporated the Warcraft Adventures storyline as canon. But the reality is that WoW was a very risky product. MMORPGs before then and also since, have basically been massive money drains except for the very few that were major cash cows. EverQuest 2 was known to be under development, as well as some other promising competitors like Guild Wars and LotR online. WC3 was a far less risky project and I'm willing to bet the RoC campaign line, world, etc. was planned out and written without any regard for WoW. The TF story probably has more concessions to WoW's ongoing development: mostly the existence of forsaken and the founding of Durotar. Although the communication between teams is clearly still not fully present: Rexxar was a huge part of the founding of Durotar, and entirely absent from all of WoW classic except as a minor inconsequential quest giver in 1k needles (I think it was there).
Neset Hemingwary had a bigger and more memorable role than Rexxar in classic WoW.
|
On October 13 2024 23:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2024 23:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 13 2024 21:47 WombaT wrote:On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote: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 The Draenei retcon is easily explained: nobody wanted to play as the ugliest race in the game, particularly not among the aesthetically-oriented Alliance. And don't forget that WoW started development in 1999, with its announcement in 2001 (War3 began in 1998). The storyline for War3 surely influenced the geography and set pieces for WoW, but the existence of WoW in turn imposed certain demands for the Frozen Throne storyline. And both incorporated the Warcraft Adventures storyline as canon. But the reality is that WoW was a very risky product. MMORPGs before then and also since, have basically been massive money drains except for the very few that were major cash cows. EverQuest 2 was known to be under development, as well as some other promising competitors like Guild Wars and LotR online. WC3 was a far less risky project and I'm willing to bet the RoC campaign line, world, etc. was planned out and written without any regard for WoW. The TF story probably has more concessions to WoW's ongoing development: mostly the existence of forsaken and the founding of Durotar. Although the communication between teams is clearly still not fully present: Rexxar was a huge part of the founding of Durotar, and entirely absent from all of WoW classic except as a minor inconsequential quest giver in 1k needles (I think it was there). Neset Hemingwary had a bigger and more memorable role than Rexxar in classic WoW.
Rexxar specifically was a last minute addition to FT. There was initially planned to not be *any* Orc campaign but a lead (Sigaty?) pushed for it to have something and have gameplay that would ease players into the WoW transition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On October 13 2024 23:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2024 21:47 WombaT wrote:On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote: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 The Draenei retcon is easily explained: nobody wanted to play as the ugliest race in the game, particularly not among the aesthetically-oriented Alliance. And don't forget that WoW started development in 1999, with its announcement in 2001 (War3 began in 1998). The storyline for War3 surely influenced the geography and set pieces for WoW, but the existence of WoW in turn imposed certain demands for the Frozen Throne storyline.
You're touching on a weird contradiction I've noticed in a lot of fantasy MMOs.
Do you want to make a distinct race or...... a race people will actually play?
I think most people rather do the latter so we're stuck with way 20 varieties of elves and less distinct races.
It's been twenty years, but I still wish we had gotten the Broken Dranei design. To me, that would have made TBC kinda interesting. Horde gets paladins + a "pretty race", and alliance gets a "monster" race + shamans.
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On October 21 2024 21:19 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2024 23:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 13 2024 21:47 WombaT wrote:On October 13 2024 20:21 Acrofales wrote: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 The Draenei retcon is easily explained: nobody wanted to play as the ugliest race in the game, particularly not among the aesthetically-oriented Alliance. And don't forget that WoW started development in 1999, with its announcement in 2001 (War3 began in 1998). The storyline for War3 surely influenced the geography and set pieces for WoW, but the existence of WoW in turn imposed certain demands for the Frozen Throne storyline. You're touching on a weird contradiction I've noticed in a lot of fantasy MMOs. Do you want to make a distinct race or...... a race people will actually play? I think most people rather do the latter so we're stuck with way 20 varieties of elves and less distinct races. It's been twenty years, but I still wish we had gotten the Broken Dranei design. To me, that would have made TBC kinda interesting. Horde gets paladins + a "pretty race", and alliance gets a "monster" race + shamans.
Aye agreed 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
