I'm the opposite I hope their remakes do poorly and they have to make new things and not just dust off things people previously liked.
Im totally with you on that. But everyone knows theyre going to remilk everything they can before they make anything new. The faster they just redo everything the faster they run out of things to remaster. Then they have to make something new.
I'm the opposite I hope their remakes do poorly and they have to make new things and not just dust off things people previously liked.
Im totally with you on that. But everyone knows theyre going to remilk everything they can before they make anything new. The faster they just redo everything the faster they run out of things to remaster. Then they have to make something new.
I don't know if that's true really. Like how long has it taken them to get Classic out? I just worry they end up nostalgia chasing and then the company fades away.
I mean blizzard used to the company to take things from all the other successful games and combine them to their own thing, now it feels like they are just cannibalizing their own stuff to find what worked once. But this is just doom and gloom. I'm sure when patch 8.3 comes out in WoW and we get a diablo 4 trailer (coming 2024) everything will be roses.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I am happy we are getting WC3:Reforged, but it is also way more than I asked for. Literally all I want is WC3 that supports modern monitor resolutions, DX11/12 video cards, and can be launched from the BNet client. That is literally all I want, and if that is what they would have announced I would have been totally happy. What they are doing is way above and beyond, and I'd rather see those development resources used elsewhere. But it is what it is.
Blizzard has an entire team devoted to remasters now. That's just a thing they're going to do. But we also need to keep perspective and remember that Blizzard is a very big game studio and they have like 5 or 6 fully staffed development teams of various sizes. They are still working on their other IPs and franchises too. It's not like they're neglecting Diablo because they are making WC3: Reforged. We simply do not know what the Diablo team is doing because they haven't told us that. But I guarantee you that it isn't neglect.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
That said, there's really only one major remaster of note left to do (Diablo 2) and at that point I doubt they'll go and do Warcraft 1/2 or Diablo 1, or their old SNES games.
Well, MAAAAYBE Warcraft II, but I would be surprised.
+1
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
I am ok with the remakes as long as they don't go overboard. Like Lucascraft said, they have a specific team only dedicated to remasters (like, these are the same guys that did StarCraft Remaster) so it's not like they are devoting main dev resources to this (at least, to WC3 Reforged).
Where I get worried is when they start saying things like how they are going to put their top devs on mobile titles.... that's... not a side project... that is actually taking away from real non-mobile games and it makes me sad.
Edit: Side note, a WarCraft 2 remake with a gorgeous hand-drawn art style would = all my monies
WC2 is literally my most desired remaster. But just like with WC3, I don't need shiny new graphics or fully rebuilt levels so that the stages reflect WoW.
All I want is WC2 that runs on modern PCs, can be launched from the BNet client, and doesn't freak out and throw psychedelic colors at me during the pre-rendered cutscenes.
It's not without flaws, but the Battle.net edition of Warcraft II is completely playable. But you do need to load the disc in and run it like a program of its age.
0
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
WC2 is literally my most desired remaster. But just like with WC3, I don't need shiny new graphics or fully rebuilt levels so that the stages reflect WoW.
All I want is WC2 that runs on modern PCs, can be launched from the BNet client, and doesn't freak out and throw psychedelic colors at me during the pre-rendered cutscenes.
isn't it completely within the modding tools in WC3 (which are being updated for Remaster btw!!!) to make maps that are functionally identical to WC2 scenarios?
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
I don't play multi so I'd be find with leaving that archaic. Give me a better controlling campaign though.
It's not without flaws, but the Battle.net edition of Warcraft II is completely playable. But you do need to load the disc in and run it like a program of its age.
Wasnt the huge issue with wc2 that its scroll rate was somehow linked to processor speed to if you tap the edge of your screen with the cursor it blasts off to pluto with modern processors? I remember reading something like that, if not the scroll rate then something else was tied to processor speed. I would totally play a wc2 if it could be launched from bnet. Doesnt even need a graphic overhaul.
It's not without flaws, but the Battle.net edition of Warcraft II is completely playable. But you do need to load the disc in and run it like a program of its age.
Wasnt the huge issue with wc2 that its scroll rate was somehow linked to processor speed to if you tap the edge of your screen with the cursor it blasts off to pluto with modern processors? I remember reading something like that, if not the scroll rate then something else was tied to processor speed. I would totally play a wc2 if it could be launched from bnet. Doesnt even need a graphic overhaul.
Not in the Battle.net edition. At least, not with my installation--and I don't have any custom legacy settings for it either. You set scroll speed in the menu.
The game does run at 640x480 (or is it 800x600?). And it does occasionally have the color inversion problem, though I just quit out and restart it to solve it.
0
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
isn't it completely within the modding tools in WC3 (which are being updated for Remaster btw!!!) to make maps that are functionally identical to WC2 scenarios?
Not base WC3 - maybe the new one? But definitely not without a lot of effort.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
If it's like the SC remaster, and it sounds like they're taking the same approach (having matchmaking work with both versions), I would think they would have to have the same controls for each. Otherwise, someone is going to end up at a disadvantage mechanically.
I know for SC you can just tap a button and the remaster disappears and leaves you with old SC, and you can enable it again with the same button. If that's how they're doing this, I would expect that to mean the campaign updates are going out to everyone, too. Unless they have different campaign maps for legacy vs. remastered, I guess?
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
0
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
That's what I'm thinking... but launching with ye olde RTS controls certainly won't help win over new players. I'd think they'd be better served splitting the multiplayer into old and new groups - it would be a lot easier to code too (I think).
That said, this decision was surely made months/years ago, so lets see what happens.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
I don't play multi so I'd be find with leaving that archaic. Give me a better controlling campaign though.
For SC there's actually a pretty good re-creation of the Original and Broodwar campaigns in the SC2 engine available for download if you go looking around on the internet.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
There are still things that they can do within lore.
They could make a DLC package that turns Warfronts into WC3 levels. They're practically already WC3 levels.
Honestly, they could directly tie the BFA campaign into a DLC. You play the story as an adventurer in WOW, and as a commander in WC3+. And then offer transmog equipment in WOW for having the DLC campaign in WC3. Even if it's too late to do it for BFA (and it probably is, given the development cycle on both ends), they could still do it for future WOW expansions. Blizzard has a fairly unique opportunity to tie together two of their properties and create an ongoing revenue stream from WC3.
They won't, because they're dumb. But the opportunity exists.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
There are still things that they can do within lore.
They could make a DLC package that turns Warfronts into WC3 levels. They're practically already WC3 levels.
Honestly, they could directly tie the BFA campaign into a DLC. You play the story as an adventurer in WOW, and as a commander in WC3+. And then offer transmog equipment in WOW for having the DLC campaign in WC3. Even if it's too late to do it for BFA (and it probably is, given the development cycle on both ends), they could still do it for future WOW expansions. Blizzard has a fairly unique opportunity to tie together two of their properties and create an ongoing revenue stream from WC3.
They won't, because they're dumb. But the opportunity exists.
I've always thought what future WC RTS content could use is a way to "import" your WoW character into a Warcraft game as a hero name/appearance that can spawn from an Altar of Storms(or equivalent). It doesn't necessarily need to be an exact 1:1 conversion, but enough of a likeness copied in that a player could feel like their own character is participating in the campaign.
That of course relies on Blizzard ever making new RTS content, so the odds of it happening are about the same as the odds of a new game happening anyway.
RTS is a bit of a dormant genre right now. There really aren't any major players in that space at the moment.
SC and SC2 both have a strong core following, but the userbase is certainly not growing. Other than that there aren't a lot of other major players in that space anymore. I guess there's the Total War franchise, and they do seem to release one of those about once per year. But I also feel like they have been dipping pretty heavily into licensed content lately, which sometimes means they're desperate to attract new followers or else trying over-hard to retain the following that they have. Personally I don't care for that series so I don't know much about it. I tried once of the originals, Rome or something, and one of the Warhammer ones, and the controls are weird and that series just doesn't do it for me. So I don't follow it a lot, so I really don't know even what it's global success looks like. Really, my only point in bringing it up is that it's the only other RTS I can even think of right now.
Of course, there are 2 on the horizon I'm aware of. Funcom is publishing a Conan universe RTS soon. I think it's due out in the spring. And of course Blizz is making WC3: Reforged.
I think Blizzard's eagerness to produce a brand new RTS of any sort, whether it be a Warcraft or a Starcraft branded one is going to have a lot to do with how the other RTS's coming to market do this year. You know they will be watching the Funcom Conan game with great interest to see how well the market accepts it.
Funcom games always suck though, so i dont expect it to be very successful. Pretty much the same for conan in general, it isnt a huge IP for gamers. The only reason the last multiplayer game had any notoriety was because characters could be completely naked and had boobs and penis sliders.
CaptainBeyondI've been out walkingRegistered Userregular
I really like the idea of the remaster, but I have to say the graphic style isn't 100% doing it for me. I feel they could have updated the models but kept the chunky proportions from the original, rather than this style that seems closer to HotS. Confusingly, they seem to have kept the chunkiness with the environment and building models, and it seems oddly disconnected to me.
Hopefully its just because its an early video, and the end product will have a more unified look.
Halo Wars 2 was well received (and left the publisher pleased)--on the other hand, it almost literally had a monopoly on console RTS, so it's not like there was much competition. Plus, cult following from the first game.
Blizzard's desire to maintain parity with the non-remastered versions removes a lot of the reason I want them in the first place; namely better controls, macroing and control groups. Going from SC2 to SC1 is rouuuuuugh, even with a graphics update.
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
There are still things that they can do within lore.
They could make a DLC package that turns Warfronts into WC3 levels. They're practically already WC3 levels.
Honestly, they could directly tie the BFA campaign into a DLC. You play the story as an adventurer in WOW, and as a commander in WC3+. And then offer transmog equipment in WOW for having the DLC campaign in WC3. Even if it's too late to do it for BFA (and it probably is, given the development cycle on both ends), they could still do it for future WOW expansions. Blizzard has a fairly unique opportunity to tie together two of their properties and create an ongoing revenue stream from WC3.
They won't, because they're dumb. But the opportunity exists.
I've always thought what future WC RTS content could use is a way to "import" your WoW character into a Warcraft game as a hero name/appearance that can spawn from an Altar of Storms(or equivalent). It doesn't necessarily need to be an exact 1:1 conversion, but enough of a likeness copied in that a player could feel like their own character is participating in the campaign.
That of course relies on Blizzard ever making new RTS content, so the odds of it happening are about the same as the odds of a new game happening anyway.
For a very long time, I thought the question "How do you even make Warcraft IV after x many years of WoW?" had an easy answer that wasn't "Wipe it all out and 'retcon' everything." You'd simple take the major faction confrontations in each expansion, turn them into missions in a campaign (WCIII was comfortable jumping around too, by and large), and flesh out the rest of the game as you see fit.
By now, we've had seven large expansions to the game, and more content on top of that, and it sounds a lot less feasible.
I really like the idea of the remaster, but I have to say the graphic style isn't 100% doing it for me. I feel they could have updated the models but kept the chunky proportions from the original, rather than this style that seems closer to HotS. Confusingly, they seem to have kept the chunkiness with the environment and building models, and it seems oddly disconnected to me.
Hopefully its just because its an early video, and the end product will have a more unified look.
yeah... it does look a little weird. The Arthas video they demoed looked... bad. It seems to lack that signature Warcraft style. Not sure what to make of it. Maybe it will be polished up before it's done.
I've always thought the best way to tell a WC4 story would be to advance the timeline by like 200 years, kill all the major players in one massive hand wave, and start fresh with a new conflict, a new antagonist, and just push the story forward far enough that it makes WoW irrelevant.
I've always thought the best way to tell a WC4 story would be to advance the timeline by like 200 years, kill all the major players in one massive hand wave, and start fresh with a new conflict, a new antagonist, and just push the story forward far enough that it makes WoW irrelevant.
That definitely helps with a lot of the aforementioned issues, but there is the simple fact that some portion of people who want WCIV, after all these years, in the first place, want to see returning faces--Thrall, Jaina, Sylvannas, Tyrande, Malfurion, etc.--many of whom aren't constrained by an easy "lifespan" limit.
There are ways around that too--Blizzard is clearly a company comfortable with flashbacks in gameplay.
Personally I don't care for that series so I don't know much about it. I tried once of the originals, Rome or something, and one of the Warhammer ones, and the controls are weird and that series just doesn't do it for me. So I don't follow it a lot, so I really don't know even what it's global success looks like. Really, my only point in bringing it up is that it's the only other RTS I can even think of right now.
Total War: Warhammer was a resounding success, eclipsing all their other titles. It and the sequel is actually an amazing game and the number of factions is through the roof.
You are right, though, RTS is a bit dormant, which is a shame. I think I might get the WC3 remaster just because, but, I'd be lying if I didn't recognize that all those years ago I was disappointed by the gameplay of WC3....mainly because I didn't want to go the hero route, I wanted big armies.
New shiny graphics and CGs are exciting, though
What I REALLY want are turn based war games like the old Gettysburg and Rebel Charge at Chickamauga, but, niche audience and all....
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I wouldn't claim the Warhammer incarnations aren't really successful, but it's worth noting that they're basically successes in a very similar way to how previous games in Total War that were well-received immediately eclipsed their predecessors. The same thing happened with Shogun II, another anticipated favorite, that immediately overshadowed Napoleon and Empire (especially Empire, since Napoleon was effectively what it should've been, combined with serious bug-fixes). Rome II, by contrast, wasn't, and that spread to its spirtual expansions (Atilla and Britannia), so Warhammer's success (combined with the franchise following, naturally) isn't actually...unusual. On top of that, TW: Warhammer got an immediate sequel with no game in between.
It's a good game, of course. And the fictional setting from Games Workshop is going to ensure it retains some fans if Three Kingdoms is a success...but you'll see something similar in all likelihood. That's what TW: Warhammer III will be for.
Personally I don't care for that series so I don't know much about it. I tried once of the originals, Rome or something, and one of the Warhammer ones, and the controls are weird and that series just doesn't do it for me. So I don't follow it a lot, so I really don't know even what it's global success looks like. Really, my only point in bringing it up is that it's the only other RTS I can even think of right now.
Total War: Warhammer was a resounding success, eclipsing all their other titles. It and the sequel is actually an amazing game and the number of factions is through the roof.
You are right, though, RTS is a bit dormant, which is a shame. I think I might get the WC3 remaster just because, but, I'd be lying if I didn't recognize that all those years ago I was disappointed by the gameplay of WC3....mainly because I didn't want to go the hero route, I wanted big armies.
New shiny graphics and CGs are exciting, though
What I REALLY want are turn based war games like the old Gettysburg and Rebel Charge at Chickamauga, but, niche audience and all....
The genre took a pretty big split back in the early 2000's. Companies like Blizzard and Relic opted to start moving their games to more squad based RTS. WC3's armies aren't small, but they aren't huge. And there's a definite emphasis on hero units, caster units, and microing a smaller number of units rather than spamming the map with huge armies.
At the same time, however, companies like Gas Powered Games (and before that Cavedog) were making games that were all about massive unit counts in games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander.
I was huge into the RTS genre back in the day. I couldn't get enough, and I basically played every game I could get my hands on in the genre back then. And I like both branches of the split. I enjoy the micro of smaller squads and hero units like in the Dawn of War games, and Company of Heroes, and WC3. But I also loved the massive unit counts in Supreme Commander and the Age of Empire/Mythology games.
My first exposure to the genre was WC2 (which I got from the Scholastic Book Club, of all places, in... uh... 7th grade?). I really liked it, and I loved SC, but I was really happy with the direction WC3 went. SC was cool but I wasn't particularly great at it, so a focus on lower supply limits and hero units that could turn the tide of battle fit better into my zone.
Though I was happy SC2 did not go the same direction. I liked that they had two distinct styles of RTS and were going to iterate on them both. (Well, I thought they would. RIP WC4)
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I really like the idea of the remaster, but I have to say the graphic style isn't 100% doing it for me. I feel they could have updated the models but kept the chunky proportions from the original, rather than this style that seems closer to HotS. Confusingly, they seem to have kept the chunkiness with the environment and building models, and it seems oddly disconnected to me.
Hopefully its just because its an early video, and the end product will have a more unified look.
yeah... it does look a little weird. The Arthas video they demoed looked... bad. It seems to lack that signature Warcraft style. Not sure what to make of it. Maybe it will be polished up before it's done.
The video had a not-subtle "work in progress, nothing shown is completed" overlay on it.
Warlords of Dreanor would have been a good story for Warcraft 4. I think the main issue is squeezing the game into the wow expansion time-line. You can't delay it for an extra year when the next wow expansion is supposed to follow it
I honestly thought Burning Crusade--specifically the Draenor Campaign--would've made a good campaign act in WCIV. Show the actually expedition being mounted, raising the Blood Elf military force, who actually built the Alliance and Horde expeditionary outposts, encountering Shattrath, etc. But it's entirely possible I've forgotten too many details.
I just assumed War3 was the parent of LoL and DoTA, sharing more with those titles than its predecessor Starcraft or traditional RTS titles.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Starcraft 1 was chosen for an up-res because it was still relevant for a lot of gameplay reasons and in communities.
Warcraft 3 was chosen for an up-res because Blizzard wants the fans who came to WoW as their first Warcraft game to see some super important lore. Which is to say basically all of the lore since Warcrafts 1 and 2 had their stories in the books then you just killed orcs and humans all over the place in the games themselves.
Well dota was just a custom map someone made with the wc3 editor. Actually playing wc3 you can have big armies and stuff. I think wc2 was generally a smaller scale than starcraft as well. So wc3 having smaller strike forces and a hero makes sense. Personally id like it if they announced wc4 set a bit further down the road, and then wow can backfill the gap story-wise and then they can either overhaul wow to fit the new time setting, or develop both concurrently. Basically having wc4 tell all the shit that they have been hiding in books.
my memory of WC2 is pretty fuzzy but one thing that was clear about it to my was that the visible window onto the battle field was pretty small relative to the unit size...
so i think your army was perhaps limited more to the screen space than the controls
I heard there are aome rumors of possibly new heroes in wc3. That makes me wonder if they are planning on making some other rather large changes, like making the nagas from the tft campaign playable as a multiplayer army.
Posts
Im totally with you on that. But everyone knows theyre going to remilk everything they can before they make anything new. The faster they just redo everything the faster they run out of things to remaster. Then they have to make something new.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I don't know if that's true really. Like how long has it taken them to get Classic out? I just worry they end up nostalgia chasing and then the company fades away.
I mean blizzard used to the company to take things from all the other successful games and combine them to their own thing, now it feels like they are just cannibalizing their own stuff to find what worked once. But this is just doom and gloom. I'm sure when patch 8.3 comes out in WoW and we get a diablo 4 trailer (coming 2024) everything will be roses.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Blizzard has an entire team devoted to remasters now. That's just a thing they're going to do. But we also need to keep perspective and remember that Blizzard is a very big game studio and they have like 5 or 6 fully staffed development teams of various sizes. They are still working on their other IPs and franchises too. It's not like they're neglecting Diablo because they are making WC3: Reforged. We simply do not know what the Diablo team is doing because they haven't told us that. But I guarantee you that it isn't neglect.
That said, there's really only one major remaster of note left to do (Diablo 2) and at that point I doubt they'll go and do Warcraft 1/2 or Diablo 1, or their old SNES games.
Well, MAAAAYBE Warcraft II, but I would be surprised.
Where I get worried is when they start saying things like how they are going to put their top devs on mobile titles.... that's... not a side project... that is actually taking away from real non-mobile games and it makes me sad.
Edit: Side note, a WarCraft 2 remake with a gorgeous hand-drawn art style would = all my monies
All I want is WC2 that runs on modern PCs, can be launched from the BNet client, and doesn't freak out and throw psychedelic colors at me during the pre-rendered cutscenes.
I want shiny new graphics cuz shiny
There'd be a market for it, sure, but the entire reason SC1 still has a playerbase is specifically because of the way it plays. It's a mechanical game. Changing the way the player interfaces with it makes it a different game, and the remake's competitive scene would be DOA.
I don't play multi so I'd be find with leaving that archaic. Give me a better controlling campaign though.
Wasnt the huge issue with wc2 that its scroll rate was somehow linked to processor speed to if you tap the edge of your screen with the cursor it blasts off to pluto with modern processors? I remember reading something like that, if not the scroll rate then something else was tied to processor speed. I would totally play a wc2 if it could be launched from bnet. Doesnt even need a graphic overhaul.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Not in the Battle.net edition. At least, not with my installation--and I don't have any custom legacy settings for it either. You set scroll speed in the menu.
The game does run at 640x480 (or is it 800x600?). And it does occasionally have the color inversion problem, though I just quit out and restart it to solve it.
Not base WC3 - maybe the new one? But definitely not without a lot of effort.
Is the WC3 multiplayer market that big (right now)? I understand catering to the fanatically undying SC1 esports scene and leaving SC1:R exactly the same. But for WC3, is that necessary? I'd really love to play WC3 with modern controls... e.g. infinite selection groups and all the other conveniences that SC2 brought that I don't even think about anymore.
I just can't play SC1 now and I have zero desire to learn. To me it would be like learning to ride a unicycle - I guess it has a use, but why bother when cycles with more wheel exist? WC3 is much less archaic, but... I'd still love an update on the controls, too.
I know for SC you can just tap a button and the remaster disappears and leaves you with old SC, and you can enable it again with the same button. If that's how they're doing this, I would expect that to mean the campaign updates are going out to everyone, too. Unless they have different campaign maps for legacy vs. remastered, I guess?
the WC3 multiplayer pool is pretty small right now. but i think SC2 had good success for them, and there is no good way for them, lore wise, to make a "WC4"... so remastering WC3 and relaunching is the easiest route to getting a new RTS out
That's what I'm thinking... but launching with ye olde RTS controls certainly won't help win over new players. I'd think they'd be better served splitting the multiplayer into old and new groups - it would be a lot easier to code too (I think).
That said, this decision was surely made months/years ago, so lets see what happens.
For SC there's actually a pretty good re-creation of the Original and Broodwar campaigns in the SC2 engine available for download if you go looking around on the internet.
There are still things that they can do within lore.
They could make a DLC package that turns Warfronts into WC3 levels. They're practically already WC3 levels.
Honestly, they could directly tie the BFA campaign into a DLC. You play the story as an adventurer in WOW, and as a commander in WC3+. And then offer transmog equipment in WOW for having the DLC campaign in WC3. Even if it's too late to do it for BFA (and it probably is, given the development cycle on both ends), they could still do it for future WOW expansions. Blizzard has a fairly unique opportunity to tie together two of their properties and create an ongoing revenue stream from WC3.
They won't, because they're dumb. But the opportunity exists.
I've always thought what future WC RTS content could use is a way to "import" your WoW character into a Warcraft game as a hero name/appearance that can spawn from an Altar of Storms(or equivalent). It doesn't necessarily need to be an exact 1:1 conversion, but enough of a likeness copied in that a player could feel like their own character is participating in the campaign.
That of course relies on Blizzard ever making new RTS content, so the odds of it happening are about the same as the odds of a new game happening anyway.
SC and SC2 both have a strong core following, but the userbase is certainly not growing. Other than that there aren't a lot of other major players in that space anymore. I guess there's the Total War franchise, and they do seem to release one of those about once per year. But I also feel like they have been dipping pretty heavily into licensed content lately, which sometimes means they're desperate to attract new followers or else trying over-hard to retain the following that they have. Personally I don't care for that series so I don't know much about it. I tried once of the originals, Rome or something, and one of the Warhammer ones, and the controls are weird and that series just doesn't do it for me. So I don't follow it a lot, so I really don't know even what it's global success looks like. Really, my only point in bringing it up is that it's the only other RTS I can even think of right now.
Of course, there are 2 on the horizon I'm aware of. Funcom is publishing a Conan universe RTS soon. I think it's due out in the spring. And of course Blizz is making WC3: Reforged.
I think Blizzard's eagerness to produce a brand new RTS of any sort, whether it be a Warcraft or a Starcraft branded one is going to have a lot to do with how the other RTS's coming to market do this year. You know they will be watching the Funcom Conan game with great interest to see how well the market accepts it.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Hopefully its just because its an early video, and the end product will have a more unified look.
For a very long time, I thought the question "How do you even make Warcraft IV after x many years of WoW?" had an easy answer that wasn't "Wipe it all out and 'retcon' everything." You'd simple take the major faction confrontations in each expansion, turn them into missions in a campaign (WCIII was comfortable jumping around too, by and large), and flesh out the rest of the game as you see fit.
By now, we've had seven large expansions to the game, and more content on top of that, and it sounds a lot less feasible.
yeah... it does look a little weird. The Arthas video they demoed looked... bad. It seems to lack that signature Warcraft style. Not sure what to make of it. Maybe it will be polished up before it's done.
That definitely helps with a lot of the aforementioned issues, but there is the simple fact that some portion of people who want WCIV, after all these years, in the first place, want to see returning faces--Thrall, Jaina, Sylvannas, Tyrande, Malfurion, etc.--many of whom aren't constrained by an easy "lifespan" limit.
There are ways around that too--Blizzard is clearly a company comfortable with flashbacks in gameplay.
Total War: Warhammer was a resounding success, eclipsing all their other titles. It and the sequel is actually an amazing game and the number of factions is through the roof.
You are right, though, RTS is a bit dormant, which is a shame. I think I might get the WC3 remaster just because, but, I'd be lying if I didn't recognize that all those years ago I was disappointed by the gameplay of WC3....mainly because I didn't want to go the hero route, I wanted big armies.
New shiny graphics and CGs are exciting, though
What I REALLY want are turn based war games like the old Gettysburg and Rebel Charge at Chickamauga, but, niche audience and all....
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
It's a good game, of course. And the fictional setting from Games Workshop is going to ensure it retains some fans if Three Kingdoms is a success...but you'll see something similar in all likelihood. That's what TW: Warhammer III will be for.
The genre took a pretty big split back in the early 2000's. Companies like Blizzard and Relic opted to start moving their games to more squad based RTS. WC3's armies aren't small, but they aren't huge. And there's a definite emphasis on hero units, caster units, and microing a smaller number of units rather than spamming the map with huge armies.
At the same time, however, companies like Gas Powered Games (and before that Cavedog) were making games that were all about massive unit counts in games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander.
I was huge into the RTS genre back in the day. I couldn't get enough, and I basically played every game I could get my hands on in the genre back then. And I like both branches of the split. I enjoy the micro of smaller squads and hero units like in the Dawn of War games, and Company of Heroes, and WC3. But I also loved the massive unit counts in Supreme Commander and the Age of Empire/Mythology games.
Though I was happy SC2 did not go the same direction. I liked that they had two distinct styles of RTS and were going to iterate on them both. (Well, I thought they would. RIP WC4)
Warcraft 3 was chosen for an up-res because Blizzard wants the fans who came to WoW as their first Warcraft game to see some super important lore. Which is to say basically all of the lore since Warcrafts 1 and 2 had their stories in the books then you just killed orcs and humans all over the place in the games themselves.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
so i think your army was perhaps limited more to the screen space than the controls
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595