How did WoW dethrone Everquest?

[Kaodi]

Ugh...

StarCraft II.... STARCRAFT II... Ugh... Brains...

*cough, cough*

Anyhow, I hope they go all out with StarCraft II. If they give it the trademark style of graphics, but at the top end, with good maps, it will rock. If you look at some of the games these days like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, you can see some of the possibilities for how far advanced SC II will be over the original. Most importantly though, to live up to the original, it will have to be perfectly balanced, and scale up to zillions of units. I am really looking forward to the story of the campaign. Hopefully they will make it a long one.

 

[TwistedBishop]

The Gaming Steve Podcast (run by Stephen Glicker, who has a lot of friends at Blizzard) has indeed confirmed that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are being made. But considering how Blizzard completely scrapped Starcraft: Ghost, nothing is certain. They're making such a mint on WoW that none of this stuff has to come out until it's perfect.

 

[Pielorinho]

Anyhow, I hope they go all out with StarCraft II. If they give it the trademark style of graphics, but at the top end, with good maps, it will rock.

Don't count on it--and I'm happy about that. Blizzard traditionally makes games that are playable on low-end systems. I hope they'll continue to do so, so that poor gamers like me can join in the fun.

Is Starcraft: Ghost really scrapped? I thought it was just endlessly delayed, another long Blizzard tradition.

Daniel

 

[TheLe]

The Gaming Steve Podcast (run by Stephen Glicker, who has a lot of friends at Blizzard) has indeed confirmed that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are being made. But considering how Blizzard completely scrapped Starcraft: Ghost, nothing is certain. They're making such a mint on WoW that none of this stuff has to come out until it's perfect.

Stracraft 2 and Diablo 3 are really no-brainers. It is highly unlikely that it will be cancelled.

As for Starcraft: Ghost, it is a little less surprising -- Blizzard has not been in the console business for many years, and the new generation is now here (Ps3/Xbox360), which makes releasing their game much more difficult.

I fully epect Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 to finish their development normally.

Fortunately, Blizzard is know for releasing relatively bug-free and polished games, so it should be good.

Unfortunately, Blizzard is know for releasing relatively bug-free and polished games, so it should be another 2 years before we see these games.

~Le

 

[Thanee]

On that note, I hope Starcraft 2 is better than Warcraft 3, which I thought stunk.

Very much so. Too bad, WC3 was/is very successful... I sure hope they realize, that it would have been twice as successful, if it was more like Starcraft.

Bye
Thanee

 

[TheLe]

Very much so. Too bad, WC3 was/is very successful... I sure hope they realize, that it would have been twice as successful, if it was more like Starcraft.

Bye
Thanee

Well, it's really a matter of perception. I don't think WC3 would have been as successful if "Blizzard" was not attached to it.

I think as a RPG/RTS hybrid, Warcraft3 very much succeeds. The problem is that WC3 fails as an RPG or RTS seperately. I have always believed that WC3 was designed as a platform to help push World of Warcraft -- essentially Blizzard "sold out" to push WoW.

I am sure this won't happen with Starcraft 3, which I actually hope stays in 2d.

`LE

 

[WizarDru]

Well, it's really a matter of perception. I don't think WC3 would have been as successful if "Blizzard" was not attached to it.

I think as a RPG/RTS hybrid, Warcraft3 very much succeeds. The problem is that WC3 fails as an RPG or RTS seperately. I have always believed that WC3 was designed as a platform to help push World of Warcraft -- essentially Blizzard "sold out" to push WoW.

Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later. Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.

 

[TheLe]

Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later. Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.

Hey, I think it's a fine game, but I just don't think it was as good as Starcraft or as revolutionary as Warcraft II.

Did I like it? Not really, no. The single player campaign was fun enough, but the multiplayer sucked and the upkeep limit was very anti-starcarft. All all the emphasis on heroes was just blah. I have no idea what the game was like now, but when I played you pretty much lost the game once your heroes died.

Now don't get me wrong, WC3 was in development for a long time. I believe that it Started out as a true sequel to WC2. However, the overall story arc and feel of the game definitely feels more like a prequel to World of Warcraft than a sequel to Warcraft 2.

And once again, I don't think it would have sold as well or would have gotten as good reviews if it did not have the "Blizzard" logo on it.

I'll take Warcraft 2 and Starcraft anyday over the hero-fest that is WC3.

Not that it matters... I am mostly playing Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft these days.

`Le

 

[Kaodi]

Graphics

Well, consider that if StarCraft II had graphics that were top end today, by the time they were released they would be low end. Your point is well taken however. Something Blizzard has been really good at in WarCraft II, StarCraft and WarCraft III (and probably WoW) is making games that have graphics that are still aesthetically pleasing on some level. Yes, they're dated, but they still look good. Anyway, I can't wait until they finally show us the first details and screens for StarCraft II... I wouldn't be surprised if it is the most highly anticipated RTS, ever.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Just curious, as I'm not a MMORPG player (somehow, the idea of plunking down money for software followed by monthy fees to play when I have limited play time bothers me) -- why is it that DDO seems to be doing so poorly? I'd think with the D&D name, it would have a real shot at success?