This quote from the article annoys me irrationally.
We're curious to find out what kind of war StarCraft 3 will explore given that the ending to StarCraft 2 pretty much put an end to most conflict.
Not really. It ended the conflict of the moment but the setting is a shit show. "A victory so final as to end war," is hubris at its highest even when you don't have giant flesh eating space bugs to worry about.
The UED is still out there, and their return was the only thing except Amon that Kerrigan was afraid of. And with Kerrigan gone the Zerg just got handed over to a new queen gifted superior vision and cunning but with no reason to show the restraint Kerrigan showed in Heart of the Swarm. The swarm was broken but it's always broken until the Zerg campaign starts and it rebuilds from zero to infinity again.
They did a follow up novel after SC2 where Zagara invited the terrans and protoss to her new throneworld for peace talks. She even grew tables and chairs for them to sit on from zerg biomatter.
She offered snacks.
These are all true things that are canon.
I am adoring the image of hydralisks in tuxedo pattern carapces, carefully balancing arrays of canapés on their talons and.offering them to guests.
its because anything that has come out is just another IP slammed into another game like total war warhammer. or they try so hard to be a game thats already out like the 4 or so games that are supposed ot be out in the next year. like i cant be excited for warcraft 3.5, command and conquer 4.5, etc. Like someone needs to do something newish. otherwise i can still go back and play the old games.
as far as starcraft is concerned there is plenty left in the storm for them to really do some cool stuff. sure zagara has the swarm, but in game, kerrigan also got Niadra onto the protoss ship and basically the last thing kerrigan told her was wipe out the protoss. I know they sort of did some comics to say Niadra made her way back, but it would be 1000x cooler if instead Niadra got a foothold somewhere and just evolved her own swarm (with hookers and blackjack!!) and then once she thinks she's ready comes back for the protoss. Like mentioned before the UED could come in with crazy future tech. And the protoss could have rebuilt and are working on dealing with regular protoss, hot topic protoss, and sneaky templars. like all the pieces are there to just have a shitstorm scifi RTS.
the biggest thing is, whatever new rts comes out has to have characters people like. otherwise it just wont reach the critical mass of people liking it. like look at overwatch, that game is popular despite everything the devs do to it because it has a bunch of cool characters that people like.
I just don't think Blizzard is even capable of making a good video game these days.
There's zero talent left at the company, and the leadership isn't interested in anything other than predatory monetization and forcing their players in to endless grinding loops.
I'm not sure you can definitely say whether or not there's no talent left. Certainly a lot of big names have gone, but that runs into the trap of auteur theory, thinking the talent comes strictly from the top. Blizzard is a company of thousands.
It'll be interested to see what happens when the shots aren't being called by Activision's shareholders and Kotick.
EDIT: What happened with Diablo 4 anyway? I see an 86 critical response on metacritic and a 2.1 in user reviews.
There's some hope in projects like Stormgate and ZeroSpace that have RTS veterans involved observing trends in Starcraft II and various other RTS games like Iron Harvest and Age of Mythology to figure what works and what doesn't. Talk of keeping in mind popular formats like Starcraft's Co-op commanders and how to make 2v2 work. But hope is a vague thing and early videos and playtests of these games have them clearly half-baked. Hard to say how well they will succeed on their goals for the next big RTS.
Can Blizzard release a Starcraft III which will serve as the next generation of the genre? Not sure they still have the folks who made the more well received parts of II to pull it off. From a story angle Nova: Covert Ops provides a capable direction of subfactions antagonizing eachother and their own broader faction for their fringe goals. Co-op commanders have a few missions that provide potential antagonists like Purifier records of real assholes that can and will hijack their systems to cause problems. Zerg were always a difficult faction to write for as swarms of mindless monsters psionically dominated by overlords under direct psionic domination of a dozen psionic slugs under domination of the Overmind. Kerrigan restructuring to just Queen to Overlord to Mindless Monsters gives a little more space for individuality and differing opinions on how the Zerg should act and interact with other factions.
Stormgate, zero space, and tempest rising are specifically games I was talking about that just look like mods or the X.5 of whatever game is their inspiration. It doesn't mean they couldn't be good. But they're going to have to really make some interesting characters if their gameplay stuff isn't going to refine or be very derivative of anything. And there's really only 1 chance to release a game. If theyre riddled with bugs, performance issues, balance frustrations, etc the games won't recover. RTS isn't a genre that can recover like No Man's Sky with patches for 5+ years. It has to be a good game and probably catch the eye of a streamer to really take off.
Blizzard has so many active live service projects now, plus the new survival IP. I guess it's conceivable they have room for SC3 too? idk. But I wouldn't expect more than an early confirmation.
Yeah, way too many games tried to chase the esports train after league of legends really took off. Sooo many games from late 2000s on were marketed as going to have massive esports backing, competitive gameplay, etc. But instead almost none of them reached a critical mass of people who cared to even play the game because the games were shit or so out of whack balance wise that no one even considered it competitive. I wish companies would just design a good game and support that, and if a competitive scene sprouts just try to nurture that. Instead they just ram ranked matchmaking down people's throats and most people really can't handle losing when it's 1v1 because it's their fault. So good campaigns and multiplayer comp stomps are why those people play.
What makes an RTS a legendary staple in gaming is its eSports backbone.
That doesn’t mean every RTS needs to try to be one which I felt was the downfall of the genre.
It’s okay to release a good single player RTS. At least you might actually be remembered, rather than one if the failed esports in the pile.
Same with shooters all trying to become the next Quake. It took until Doom 2016 to realise people wanted some good single player old school shooters.
Relic is I think perhaps one of the more memorable examples here. Aside from the opinions of some Dawn of War 1 grognards, Dawn of War 2 was great, The Last Stand was conceptually amazing but criminally under-cultivated - but then when DoW3 came around they decided hey let's not do any of what people loved about DoW2 again and go full dive into the RTS clone-o-sphere... and look how well it worked out for them.
There are niches the game can survive in and thrive, but they left it almost as soon as they found it. I think DoW3 could have had a healthy life as an iteration on 2, and The Last Stand could even have been its own successful thing in the MOBA space if they bothered to do more with the idea. But now both are dead and I'm never not going to be pissed about that.
And let's not forget the whole debacle that was CoH3 launch. Just bugs everywhere, balance all crazy, and subsequent patches are all basically just let's keep buffing axis. Relic doesn't know wtf they're doing. CoH2 was serviceable after a while but still buggy. CoH1 was a masterpiece. Like stop chasing some other game and just make yours playable and do what you're good at.
Yeah, way too many games tried to chase the esports train after league of legends really took off. Sooo many games from late 2000s on were marketed as going to have massive esports backing, competitive gameplay, etc. But instead almost none of them reached a critical mass of people who cared to even play the game because the games were shit or so out of whack balance wise that no one even considered it competitive. I wish companies would just design a good game and support that, and if a competitive scene sprouts just try to nurture that. Instead they just ram ranked matchmaking down people's throats and most people really can't handle losing when it's 1v1 because it's their fault. So good campaigns and multiplayer comp stomps are why those people play.
This won't happen because if a game isn't pulling $TEXAS worth of money then they won't go for it. The industry seems to believe it needs a Fortnite for every release.
I believe there are more real time strategy games on Xbox Series, presently, than any other current generation console, for two reasons exclusive to Xbox: a big-ass push towards console compatibility for strategy games (like Age of Empires), and backwards compatibility that goes back three previous console generations.
(Otherwise, it's a pretty low bar to clear, because those games are frequently absent from console. Xbox would get the same multiplatform releases you'd see on Playstation anyway, unless there's an PS exclusive RTS out there for PS4 and PS5 that I don't know about.)
That being said, Microsoft has also published multiple strategy games that only came to their console belatedly (the Age of Empires examples again), and a similar situation arises with developers like Paradox (with their console releases following the Windows releases by some time).
So that's two things that could happen (and they're not even that different). That is absolutely not a guarantee that Microsoft is somehow eager to resurrect Starcraft as a strategy game franchise on Xbox (though they have featured Starcraft prominently in their Activision-Blizzard acquisition marketing materials for a while now). It's the same reason Phil Spencer and other "old guard" at Xbox have talked about Starcraft Ghost from time to time, in the most nonspecific terms possible. Unsurprisingly, something like Diablo 4 which is following two other competent console releases in the last decade is being featured a good deal more.
Good points on the single-player experience.
I do have fond memories of playing Warcraft 1 and abusing the overpowered death and decay in it... elemental spell. Warcraft 2 was also fun times as a kid.
But as some have said, single-player RTS might not make Texa$.
Hopefully this Blizzcon we'll see if the company has started shifting away from that mentality.
OR this is all just wish-full thinking and we'll get another 'don't you guys have phones?!'
But as some have said, single-player RTS might not make Texa$.
Hopefully this Blizzcon we'll see if the company has started shifting away from that mentality.
I have no doubt a new StarCraft will chase the e-sport crowd. StarCraft not doing that would be like a new Quake not trying to revive arena shooter multiplayer.
But in general, if the genre is to return, every game can’t be the next best e-sport, and won’t be, so the expectation of constantly updated, balanced multiplayer needs to be let go of.
0
Options
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
I feel the need to plug Beyond All Reason, which is a modern remake of Total Annihilation, and it's both free and has a living userbase.
It's a boatload of fun (and it has boats!), 8v8 madness never gets old.
That already existed in Spring, so this is another re-implementation?
Yes it is, just with modernized graphics and a better interface. It's quite slick, actually, which is usually a hangup I have when trying new (or old) RTS games.
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
But as some have said, single-player RTS might not make Texa$.
Hopefully this Blizzcon we'll see if the company has started shifting away from that mentality.
I have no doubt a new StarCraft will chase the e-sport crowd. StarCraft not doing that would be like a new Quake not trying to revive arena shooter multiplayer.
But in general, if the genre is to return, every game can’t be the next best e-sport, and won’t be, so the expectation of constantly updated, balanced multiplayer needs to be let go of.
They still till this day keep changing stuff with Starcraft 2...just leave it alone already. People, pros especially, usually hate constant change. It means you can't just learn and then figure out the nuances from there. If the game is good enough, people WILL find things, sometimes many many years (decades) later.
But as some have said, single-player RTS might not make Texa$.
Hopefully this Blizzcon we'll see if the company has started shifting away from that mentality.
I have no doubt a new StarCraft will chase the e-sport crowd. StarCraft not doing that would be like a new Quake not trying to revive arena shooter multiplayer.
But in general, if the genre is to return, every game can’t be the next best e-sport, and won’t be, so the expectation of constantly updated, balanced multiplayer needs to be let go of.
They still till this day keep changing stuff with Starcraft 2...just leave it alone already. People, pros especially, usually hate constant change. It means you can't just learn and then figure out the nuances from there. If the game is good enough, people WILL find things, sometimes many many years (decades) later.
Starcraft 2 is not in a state where anyone would say the changes are too frequent. I think they just got a patch after well over a year.
I'd be worried for too much changes with a new game, but imo these games that constantly add change so that no imbalance can ever settle before a new one overwhelms it are all like that so it's not unique to this game or company. But I wouldn't trust blizzard because they'd also need to sell endless dlc on top of hiding the balance issues. I know what that would be and what a shame if that became the biggest rts experience.
Nothing Starcraft focused on the main schedule. So opening ceremony is where gacha stuff will come up.
As with other Blizzcons, I tend to look for the gaps in schedule for where I would fit a 'secret talk'. I think there's room between the 2:30 and 4:45 on Saturday for an hour long talk on Starcraft or something unannounced.
Posts
I’ve been saying this for ages. We get the occasional good game but nothing that really ignites any passion for the genre.
It needs its Pillars of Eternity.
I am adoring the image of hydralisks in tuxedo pattern carapces, carefully balancing arrays of canapés on their talons and.offering them to guests.
as far as starcraft is concerned there is plenty left in the storm for them to really do some cool stuff. sure zagara has the swarm, but in game, kerrigan also got Niadra onto the protoss ship and basically the last thing kerrigan told her was wipe out the protoss. I know they sort of did some comics to say Niadra made her way back, but it would be 1000x cooler if instead Niadra got a foothold somewhere and just evolved her own swarm (with hookers and blackjack!!) and then once she thinks she's ready comes back for the protoss. Like mentioned before the UED could come in with crazy future tech. And the protoss could have rebuilt and are working on dealing with regular protoss, hot topic protoss, and sneaky templars. like all the pieces are there to just have a shitstorm scifi RTS.
the biggest thing is, whatever new rts comes out has to have characters people like. otherwise it just wont reach the critical mass of people liking it. like look at overwatch, that game is popular despite everything the devs do to it because it has a bunch of cool characters that people like.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I can’t see them pressing forward with a new game that can’t be played on an Xbox.
The Age of Empires games aren't on Xbox, I don't think.
Metzen's been gone long enough that maybe, just maybe, this will be the case.
Frost Giant's new RTS is also in the works, but frankly looks like an SC2 mod... so dunno, definitely need something fresh.
Also, old-man reflexes now means no more high apm, so they better also include a great story
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
I dunno about old-man reflexes; Artosis sustains roughly 250-300 APM pretty solidly in his BW games, and he's 40.
There's zero talent left at the company, and the leadership isn't interested in anything other than predatory monetization and forcing their players in to endless grinding loops.
It'll be interested to see what happens when the shots aren't being called by Activision's shareholders and Kotick.
EDIT: What happened with Diablo 4 anyway? I see an 86 critical response on metacritic and a 2.1 in user reviews.
Can Blizzard release a Starcraft III which will serve as the next generation of the genre? Not sure they still have the folks who made the more well received parts of II to pull it off. From a story angle Nova: Covert Ops provides a capable direction of subfactions antagonizing eachother and their own broader faction for their fringe goals. Co-op commanders have a few missions that provide potential antagonists like Purifier records of real assholes that can and will hijack their systems to cause problems. Zerg were always a difficult faction to write for as swarms of mindless monsters psionically dominated by overlords under direct psionic domination of a dozen psionic slugs under domination of the Overmind. Kerrigan restructuring to just Queen to Overlord to Mindless Monsters gives a little more space for individuality and differing opinions on how the Zerg should act and interact with other factions.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
I think it revolves around some of the nerfs they did in D4 that really got people riled up. Also something about season 1 being meh?
Same with Overwatch 2. Both are review bombed in Steam.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
That doesn’t mean every RTS needs to try to be one which I felt was the downfall of the genre.
It’s okay to release a good single player RTS. At least you might actually be remembered, rather than one if the failed esports in the pile.
Same with shooters all trying to become the next Quake. It took until Doom 2016 to realise people wanted some good single player old school shooters.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Relic is I think perhaps one of the more memorable examples here. Aside from the opinions of some Dawn of War 1 grognards, Dawn of War 2 was great, The Last Stand was conceptually amazing but criminally under-cultivated - but then when DoW3 came around they decided hey let's not do any of what people loved about DoW2 again and go full dive into the RTS clone-o-sphere... and look how well it worked out for them.
There are niches the game can survive in and thrive, but they left it almost as soon as they found it. I think DoW3 could have had a healthy life as an iteration on 2, and The Last Stand could even have been its own successful thing in the MOBA space if they bothered to do more with the idea. But now both are dead and I'm never not going to be pissed about that.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
If you're not going to put in the post-launch effort for multiplayer, at least put your effort into a good single player campaign.
Main reason I bought Starship Troopers and I'm looking forward to Terminator Dark Fate Defiance.
Jesus, I never consistently got over 100 back in the BW days
This won't happen because if a game isn't pulling $TEXAS worth of money then they won't go for it. The industry seems to believe it needs a Fortnite for every release.
I believe there are more real time strategy games on Xbox Series, presently, than any other current generation console, for two reasons exclusive to Xbox: a big-ass push towards console compatibility for strategy games (like Age of Empires), and backwards compatibility that goes back three previous console generations.
(Otherwise, it's a pretty low bar to clear, because those games are frequently absent from console. Xbox would get the same multiplatform releases you'd see on Playstation anyway, unless there's an PS exclusive RTS out there for PS4 and PS5 that I don't know about.)
That being said, Microsoft has also published multiple strategy games that only came to their console belatedly (the Age of Empires examples again), and a similar situation arises with developers like Paradox (with their console releases following the Windows releases by some time).
So that's two things that could happen (and they're not even that different). That is absolutely not a guarantee that Microsoft is somehow eager to resurrect Starcraft as a strategy game franchise on Xbox (though they have featured Starcraft prominently in their Activision-Blizzard acquisition marketing materials for a while now). It's the same reason Phil Spencer and other "old guard" at Xbox have talked about Starcraft Ghost from time to time, in the most nonspecific terms possible. Unsurprisingly, something like Diablo 4 which is following two other competent console releases in the last decade is being featured a good deal more.
I do have fond memories of playing Warcraft 1 and abusing the overpowered death and decay in it... elemental spell. Warcraft 2 was also fun times as a kid.
But as some have said, single-player RTS might not make Texa$.
Hopefully this Blizzcon we'll see if the company has started shifting away from that mentality.
OR this is all just wish-full thinking and we'll get another 'don't you guys have phones?!'
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
Starcraft for your phone
It's a boatload of fun (and it has boats!), 8v8 madness never gets old.
That already existed in Spring, so this is another re-implementation?
Maybe more of a placeholder world.
I have no doubt a new StarCraft will chase the e-sport crowd. StarCraft not doing that would be like a new Quake not trying to revive arena shooter multiplayer.
But in general, if the genre is to return, every game can’t be the next best e-sport, and won’t be, so the expectation of constantly updated, balanced multiplayer needs to be let go of.
Yes it is, just with modernized graphics and a better interface. It's quite slick, actually, which is usually a hangup I have when trying new (or old) RTS games.
Downloaded and installing.
TA was a huge thing in our house. 3 player multiplayer most weekends thanks to multiplayer spawn installs.
I might even try this online.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
They still till this day keep changing stuff with Starcraft 2...just leave it alone already. People, pros especially, usually hate constant change. It means you can't just learn and then figure out the nuances from there. If the game is good enough, people WILL find things, sometimes many many years (decades) later.
Starcraft gacha.
Starcraft 2 is not in a state where anyone would say the changes are too frequent. I think they just got a patch after well over a year.
I'd be worried for too much changes with a new game, but imo these games that constantly add change so that no imbalance can ever settle before a new one overwhelms it are all like that so it's not unique to this game or company. But I wouldn't trust blizzard because they'd also need to sell endless dlc on top of hiding the balance issues. I know what that would be and what a shame if that became the biggest rts experience.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
As with other Blizzcons, I tend to look for the gaps in schedule for where I would fit a 'secret talk'. I think there's room between the 2:30 and 4:45 on Saturday for an hour long talk on Starcraft or something unannounced.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra