Warcraft 4, Starcraft 3

[onesteptwostep]

They (Blizzard), are thinking of working on this once they finish up with Legacy of the Void. But then some argue that the economic of the game, and the hegemony of the MOBA genre in gaming nowadays, might stop them from actually making it happen. (f***ing LoL!) One interesting thing in that Forbes article is that- Diablo III is actually doing well in sales and is "one of the best selling games of all time"?! When'd this happen o_O

Errr anyway I'm for WC4. SC3 on the other hand I'm not so sure about, since SC2 didn't have much traction. And speaking of which I should preorder LotV...​

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Hey gramps, stop playing old stuff and get on LoL..

 

[onesteptwostep]

I've had my fair share of LoL, I've played in the beta

 

[Pyropyro]

I'm fine with closing the SC games with LoTV. Some game series are best kept short (I'm looking at you Command and Conquer!).

As for Warcraft IV, well I doubt that it will happen since they already moved the storyline to WoW.

Diablo III is actually pretty nice storywise but D2 has a special place in my nephilim heart.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm actually looking forward to about five to ten years from now, when WoW has died and they've brought up WoS in it's wake.

 

[Pyropyro]

I'm actually looking forward to about five to ten years from now, when WoW has died and they've brought up WoS in it's wake.

I'm game with that. Make this a thing Blizzard!

Spoiler

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't think Wow will ever really die. Blizzard rejuvenates it with every expansion pack; they make it newly appealing, freshly immersive, and open to all types of mmo players. Eventually they might have to update the graphics, but that would probably be more cost effective than creating a new mmo.

And if it won't die, I don't imagine they will invest their time into making other mmos. They would be competing with themselves.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No, it'll die. They're great with expaxcs, let's not lie about that, but sooner or later people will get tired of it. It's inevitable. I'm giving it about five more years. They've already updated the graphics in different ways several times. It's still WoW. I came back for this most recent expac, and I stopped playing after about two months. I have some great memories of the game, but I'm simply over it. There's only so long you can keep playing the same game reliably. Besides, even if it doesn't die of player exhaustion, they'll eventually start having to stretch the story into such strange places that it won't make sense any more. Granted, that'll take a really long time, but the point stands.

I'm actually looking forward to WoW dying and Bliz following it up with a different MMORPG, because the fact of the matter is that they do a good job. WoW is getting boring and repetitive, so I want to see what can be done with the lessons that were learned from WoW being used to build something brand new, a whole new world to discover (Well, not brand new, but you know what I mean).

 

[Yellow]

I'm still playing Starcraft Broodwar. That, and Diablo 2. I can't seem to get into Starcraft II or Warcraft III because the graphics confuse me. Maybe 3 and 4 will be better.

I'm morally opposed to paying for a game and then paying for the right to play it and/or being forced to report to their servers, so that rules out Diablo III for me, and will probably stop me from playing new Starcraft (I dont like Warcraft as much).

Bah humbug.

 

[onesteptwostep]

New LotV video out, it's pretty good.

 

[Kuu]

I'm still playing Starcraft Broodwar. That, and Diablo 2. I can't seem to get into Starcraft II or Warcraft III because the graphics confuse me. Maybe 3 and 4 will be better.

I'm morally opposed to paying for a game and then paying for the right to play it and/or being forced to report to their servers, so that rules out Diablo III for me, and will probably stop me from playing new Starcraft (I dont like Warcraft as much).

Bah humbug.

Blizzard took so fucking long in releasing StarCraft 2 that I went from ardent StarCraft player to "meh" by the time SC2 was out. What was it, 12 years?? Besides they WoW-ified it, and ruined it's look. Seriously the sprite graphics were much nicer.

Maybe in another 10 years when SC3 finally comes out, I might be bored enough to pick up SC2...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If Blizzard does well financially, I can't see W4 and S3 not being created.

Large businesses suffer from desperate clinging to successful ideas, expending large resources to sell a repackaged idea again and again.

Actually, being a little bit more precise, afaik WoW's patches / source version was branded as W4 and the storyline takes over from W3.

So, there will be a W5, as much as there is going to be a Diablo 4, whether it will be an RTS or MMO is uncertain.

I don't care either way, the days I spent frantically rushed and feeling my adrenaline as a result of seriously playing RTS are long gone, at the same time the design vision of Blizzard makes it extremely unlikely for them to ever create an MMO I'd devote a significant amount of time to.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

When sc2 die, then they will make sth similar to wc3, but I think they will make another storyline, another world

 

[Redfire]

When sc2 die, then they will make sth similar to wc3, but I think they will make another storyline, another world

Well, it's about time, isn't it?
With Arthas gone that world is pretty much pointless.

 

[QuickTwist]

Guys, hate to break this to you but they have already done it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Blizzard's been doing pretty well since Diablo III. They're recycling the lore, but they're actually moving in new directions with the content. They've been pretty radical about implementing what I assume is a lot of market research.

1) Hearthstone is WC lore with a casual MTG feel. It's a fine game, and they departed from many of the BS restrictions of paper card games (draft pods, bartering, animations), overall making it more enjoyable. Compare to Magic Online where they're crippling themselves with a terrible UI, insane prices ($14 for a draft that in hearthstone would cost like $3 or $4), ugly HUD and graphics, clunky everything.

2) Heroes of the Storm is SC and WC lore in a moba. Killed off all the hardcore elements of Moba to bring in the casual crowd (srsly, no last hitting, no gold, no items). It's a surprisingly fun game that doesn't feel like you need to train at it to enjoy it.

3) Legacy of the Void is starcraft but you start out with double the workers and have to expand far more rapidly due to resources running out faster. Sounds small but the game will never be the same. They also made more units have simple activated abilities which places more of an emphasis on soft micro (skill shots as opposed to marine split and shoot'n'scoot). I'm yet to play, but from what I've seen it looks like it's a lot more interesting that Heart of the Swarm.

4) Overwatch. Haven't played, but it's an FPS which afaik they haven't done before. Looks like they're not recycling lore with it either, and it's got a lot of hype behind it. Seems like they may have borrowed from TF?

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that despite them having made some pretty shitty moves, they seem to be making a comeback and I'm considering becoming blizzardfanboy once more. That they're actually moving forward when so many big name game companies are content not to is great. They look like they've done a lot of research into all the pies they didn't have a thumb in, spotted potential for improvement, and committed hard to bringing some competition to established names.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

1) Hearthstone is WC lore with a casual MTG feel. It's a fine game, and they departed from many of the BS restrictions of paper card games (draft pods, bartering, animations), overall making it more enjoyable. Compare to Magic Online where they're crippling themselves with a terrible UI, insane prices ($14 for a draft that in hearthstone would cost like $3 or $4), ugly HUD and graphics, clunky everything.

I think this pricing is due to the fact that they wouldn't sell much if it was more expensive. MTG has popularity and pro-gaming behind it and it's selling well enough to justify this steep cost.
Personally I see any such pricing method as extortion and I couldn't bring myself to invest in heartstone or mtgo because of this. Pay to win is not exactly my kind of game and certainly to have ones options unlimited one would have to throw money out like crazy on either of these games. Considering that 10 draft games cost similarly to a new game altogether, the fun/money ratio doesn't even contend with the general market.

I think what they should do, is introducing a completely free to play card set to draw in new players and to widen the competitive scene, then maybe they could demand a low yearly server fee of some sort to avoid making losses, though it's very likely that these new crowds they'd managed to attract would be buying their products anyway.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that despite them having made some pretty shitty moves, they seem to be making a comeback and I'm considering becoming blizzardfanboy once more. That they're actually moving forward when so many big name game companies are content not to is great. They look like they've done a lot of research into all the pies they didn't have a thumb in, spotted potential for improvement, and committed hard to bringing some competition to established names.

You may be right. I don't think they go in a good direction for me, I agree with you on HotS being one of the best designed mobas out there (I don't like to play it), though none of their newer games, besides Starcraft II seem like progress and innovation that I'd like to see. They certainly always had great polish and value in their titles, so if I was recommending games to a mainstream player, they are a very good choice.

 

[QuickTwist]

Anyway, I think way too slow for these kinds of game to be at all competitive at them. My strength is definitely not in logical deduction which is essential for these kinds of game to be competitive. (I'm talking about SC, I have no idea about the others)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Anyway, I think way too slow for these kinds of game to be at all competitive at them. My strength is definitely not in logical deduction which is essential for these kinds of game to be competitive. (I'm talking about SC, I have no idea about the others)

Starcraft is all about reflexes, precision and multi-tasking. It's very lightweight on strategy and logic, as most rts games are.
The best players have the best agility, intelligence, stress endurance and builds behind them. Most of their strategy doesn't even have to be their own and instead is developed in a team or with a manager, etc.

Logic-strategy in SC is mostly about developing a reliable build, learning/breaking the meta and analysing games and counters, it happens before and after the game, not during one, there's very little room for that aside from picking correct builds and responses.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Blar
Hmmm... Yeah I haven't played any Blizz games in a while. I'm thinking of taking up LotV, but I'm already balls deep in other things.

With CCGs, the cards have secondary market value, so you're not necessarily losing dosh. Going infinite (fueling subsequent drafts with winnings from previous ones) has become more difficult as they change the pricing etc., but it's still possible, and the dollar goes a lot further than you'd at first expect.

@QT
Blar's right, or at least, mostly right. Most RTS don't have that much strategy actually happening game to game. SC was (and possibly still is) a grievous offender in this regard. Both players walk into a game knowing every iteration of how it's going to turn out. It's all about execution with barely any decision making. Build orders reign supreme. There are some notable exceptions (Spanishiwa and TLO come to mind), but rote learning a build order serves most players far better than thought.
Also, deduction is barely a thing in any RTS, because it requires a lot of information you rarely have. Inference is where it's at, and that's a lot more intuitive.

The RTS I enjoy the most are the ones where the meta can't stagnate due to variance in context and outcomes. Maps with meaningful strategic differences keep metas in flux by forcing adaptation from players. Having a lot of races and options to choose from decrease predictability. There's always FotM, but it's not mandatory and often it's not even the strongest option available.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The RTS I enjoy the most are the ones where the meta can't stagnate due to variance in context and outcomes. Maps with meaningful strategic differences keep metas in flux by forcing adaptation from players. Having a lot of races and options to choose from decrease predictability. There's always FotM, but it's not mandatory and often it's not even the strongest option available.

Succinctly put: random maps.

Things that help: random meta rotation (temporary mechanic bans, random scenarios and races), early phases of the game meta/theorycrafting, high fog of war/yomi, games rewarding scouting, games rewarding innovation/creativity, slow-paced or multi-phase gameplay. RTS rewarding decisions more than execution, etc.

 

[QuickTwist]

I was talking more about building units that counter the opponents. I don't actually know much about SC or AoE or whatever. I guess it is all just a matter of memorizing what units counter what and just being slightly ahead of the opponent on what units you are building. I am more familiar with DOTA even though I have never played a game of that in my life. My brother plays at a pretty high level. He has a 4K MMR for both solo and party. We talk about it sometimes and I watch him play occasionally when I am bored out of my mind. I do know there is a ton to know in a game with 100+ characters to choose from. Again I think that is mostly memorization like what you guys are talking about.

I will say that with these games, if you want to go pro, you are going to have to be really good at coming up with your own strategies and that takes some out of the box thinking and not just copying what other people do.

 

[Hadoblado]

But it really doesn't. Sure, the people that come up with their own ideas are crowd favourites, but it's one's capacity to implement the ideas that matters at the top. It's the difference between the guy that builds a car and the guy that wins a race with it, sure there is a body of knowledge that helps with both, but you can certainly be one without being the other.

For DotA, it's likely a healthier mix of both, since the nature of team-making keeps game variability in flux. It's more tactics than strategy though.

@Blar
Random map seeding is great, but I'm yet to play any RTS that's advanced past Age of Empires level seeding. Typically the gameplay doesn't vary much in those games, because the terrain basically comes down to resources, elevation, passable, or unpassable. It's actually more stale than SC somehow. Other games I've played have lacked the random seeding element, but have done a lot better at making terrain matter. I'm sure that there is strife to be had making an effective seeding program that makes use of more dynamic and diverse terrain, but it seems like it might be a possibility for making the advances in RTS that haven't been seen in so long.

 

[QuickTwist]

It very well is a mix of both for Dota 2. I can't tell you the amount of times my brother and I were watching a tournament and my brother really had to scratch his head in confusion as to why they pick X hero in that spot only to realize in game why it was a such a great pick that won them the game. At the upper levels (I'm talking about pros here) you HAVE to be able to come up with new strategies that haven't been seen before. It takes really the whole package to be a pro MOBA player. You cannot just be mechanically good, that is fact. You have to have map awareness and you have to know what your team is trying to accomplish and you have to make +EV decisions all the time to play at that level.

There are a few reasons I don't play Dota 2. First reason is that the community is pretty toxic. There is so much flame going on that I don't think I could take playing it for too long. Second is that I don't like how half the game is decided in the first 5 min before the game is played with picks that very well could make or break the whole outcome of the game. Third, I don't like the idea of a hard carry taking all the resources and being the all in all deciding factor of the game. I don't like how lopsided the resources are in the game with dictates how the game is played.

 

[Alias]

4) Overwatch. Haven't played, but it's an FPS which afaik they haven't done before. Looks like they're not recycling lore with it either, and it's got a lot of hype behind it. Seems like they may have borrowed from TF?

My view on Overwatch is as such. It isn't terrible, it's really well made. My problem with it is originality of mechanics/characters. You're right in that quite a bit was stolen from TF2. Character that can charge people with melee damage, check. Russian heavy weapons expert, check. German healer, check. Short guy that builds sentry guns, check. Lots of the mechanics, such as charging, can be found in TF2. It has enough of that to try and draw people from TF2. The factor that makes me, personally, not want to play it, is the characters themselves. They're either generic (Soldier 76, Reaper) borrowed/stolen (Mercy, Zarya, Torbjorn) or weird/reminiscent of unlikely characters (That one girl who looks like she's from Ice Climbers, Reinhardt looks like Sauron). They don't seem as lovable and unique as the TF guys. And I'm not a big fan of the whole adding classes frequently thing. Makes it hard for me to get attached.

Of course, that's all just my opinion. People can play whatever they want, but as for me, I'm sticking to good old Team Fortress until the end. Overwatch is still in beta, so I'm not eager to get into it now.