Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

hypebeast.com

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#91
post #3

Incredible to see how disconnected Blizzard is from its customers. One more shooter, when we wanted the next RTS.

People may not want to admit this, but RTS is a thing of the past. There haven't been a big, successful release of a brand new RTS for years. Most recent releases are remasters of games from decades ago. There is no money in another RTS, and Blizzard understands that.

If you don't believe me, read some books and articles -- this has been well analyzed and discussed.

Sorry but you are the one disconnected from the reality of today's gaming market.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#92
post #23
post #9

"Set to launch 2030" Why even bother to announce this now? I only see downsides in mentioning something that far out.

This is pretty typical for a new blizzard game. For example Diablo 3 and 4 were both announced 4 years prior to release. Not saying it’s good or bad, but it’s not unusual.

It's typical one or two decades ago, but I doubt it will go well in today's world.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#93
post #3

Incredible to see how disconnected Blizzard is from its customers. One more shooter, when we wanted the next RTS.

> You think you do, but you don't. Nailed it. People want patched versions of the same RTS. AoE4 came out a few years ago as an IMO fantastic RTS which smoothed over many of the idiosyncrasies of AoE2. From a multiplayer perspective, it was doomed from the start, for not being AoE2. I couldn't even convince my friends to play it with me. (Everyone is still playing AoE2, and expansions + patches are still regular)

BTW AoE4 is nowhere near doomed, i play AoE4 multiplayer regularly and hear this often. AoE4 has about half the number of daily players (12-15K) that AoE2 does, but it’s easily enough to play multiplayer. It also gets regular DLCs and updates and has had a stable playerbase for years now. Basically its less popular and many AoE2 players will never switch, but it’s an active game.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#94
post #51
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have that this is the general sentiment among 'customers' rather than your own? Genuinely asking, I too would have preferred an RTS but my sense is the player base for RTS is much smaller than a shooter.

Who are they targeting? With SC IP, I’d assume they are targeting SC fans, who probably want more RTS. If you’re trying to launch a cool new shooter, why use SC IP?

I've played quite a few hours of Blizzard games throughout the years and as much as I loved the starcraft universe RTS is just not approachable for me. So I can vouch as one person who is really excited to get a taste of the universe outside the RTS genre.

That said, whether the game itself will be good is still TBD.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#95
post #27
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the majority of people responsible for their legacy RTS games have left, so I figure they feel less capable of even trying.

They announced a new expansion for Warcraft III this past weekend actually. So they are definitely still trying : )

It’s already out

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#96
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They basically only did it because the private servers had enough of a userbase that they felt obliged to get that money for themselves afaict

Product Market Fit rarely flatters the egos of visionary product managers.

^^ i think this is pretty fucking insightful, yeah

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starcraft2's problem was that it was 3 separate games with incredible patches that completely changed everything. The balance team had no idea of the game they wanted StarCraft 2 to be. By the time it all settled down the community went back to SC:BW. I'm positive there was some combination of SC2 patches that was amazing, if only the patch/balance team stuck with it. I don't know which set of patches that was though…

I haven't touched it in ages. But I always felt that it SC2 was more successful in taking out APM and "Deathball" mechanics. I remember a lot of cheese options and nuances. I guess there is just a big spread between balancing the pro players and the bronze league fuckers like myself. I have more nostalgia for SC:BW but only played online thanks to SC2 matchmaking. I think making an RTS that ticks all the boxes is inc…

Sometimes SC2 was anti APM. Other times, SC2 adds chronoboost / MULEs for no other reason than to eat up APM and provide an outlet for physical clicking and increase APM.

As it ends up, SC2 is randomly anti-APM and pro-APM, depending on the patch, depending on the year.

By swinging back and forth trying to cater to both camps, all that was accomplished was confusion and ultimately a loss of trust between players and the balance team. In many regards, the community swinging back to SC:BW or AOE2 is because we don't like patches that change the game so dramatically.

AOE2 seems to have hit the correct balance point, major changes that the community desires (ex: Longswords being viable after 25 years of constant buffing) but never so major that it fundamentally alters the game the community likes.

Or ex: being brave enough to throw out all sea units / Naval Battles and basically start over from scratch. (Kind of a big change but one the community actually enjoyed).

-------

SC2 patches were more random feeling and more knee jerk.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#98
post #3

Incredible to see how disconnected Blizzard is from its customers. One more shooter, when we wanted the next RTS.

Blizzard being a generally terrible developer aside, I don’t think you’re right about this. RTS is not a very popular genre all things considered, and the ARTS/MOBA variants are dominated by DOTA and League of Legends. You also can’t play RTS games on consoles. A lot of fans of StarCraft still wish they saw StarCraft: Ghost see the light of day. Arguably the franchise is very much underdeveloped. The IP and story wou…

> If StarCraft 3 comes out it would only be popular in South Korea and possibly not all that popular at all even there.

Given that StarCraft 2 still hasn't fully displaced BroodWar, I shudder to think of the uphill battle a StarCraft 3 would face.

Really, in this era of live service games, it would make more sense to release a client refresh (multithreading + anniversary graphics) for SC2, and an expansion pack of new campaigns...

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize people said the exact same stuff before SC2, right? Saying it's a dead genre, nobody is going to buy it so they won't make it, etc. And yet SC2 was extremely successful. I predict SC3 would be equally successful if Blizzard can do a good job making it (which is not certain these days). > You also can’t play RTS games on consoles. You certainly can. See Halo Wars.

Halo Wars sold 16.7% of Halo 3’s first week sales according to Wikipedia. It was commercially successful but not in a mainstream mass audience kind of way. Yes, it proved that RTS can be done on a controller (arguably, StarCraft 64 kind of sort of proved that, too), but if you’ve ever played StarCraft 2 I think you’d agree that particular style of RTS is really not possible without a keyboard and mouse. The game is a…

> The game is almost entirely revolving around maximizing your actions per minute.

Maybe for top tier play, but apm wasn’t really needed for regular play.

Just to debunk this myth, it used to be possible to get to diamond with 80-100 apm (which is very easy to achieve), efficient builds, fundamental rush defense, and a-move.

Not sure about now, but it was doable for many years.

Re: Blizzard Revives 'StarCraft' Franchise with Open-World Sci-Fi Shooter

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starcraft2's problem was that it was 3 separate games with incredible patches that completely changed everything. The balance team had no idea of the game they wanted StarCraft 2 to be. By the time it all settled down the community went back to SC:BW. I'm positive there was some combination of SC2 patches that was amazing, if only the patch/balance team stuck with it. I don't know which set of patches that was though…

I haven't touched it in ages. But I always felt that it SC2 was more successful in taking out APM and "Deathball" mechanics. I remember a lot of cheese options and nuances. I guess there is just a big spread between balancing the pro players and the bronze league fuckers like myself. I have more nostalgia for SC:BW but only played online thanks to SC2 matchmaking. I think making an RTS that ticks all the boxes is inc…

> But I always felt that it SC2 was more successful in taking out APM and "Deathball" mechanics

On "Deathballs", no. SC2 always allowed the player to select all military. SC2 always had smoother patching and better programmed "flocking" behavior.

In SC:BW, it's an APM feat to simply control 12 Dragoons/Goliaths/Siege Tanks across a bridge. Meanwhile, a hundred SC2 Stalkers can easily chain-blink across the same terrain no issues.

In SC:BW, the bad patching and bumping is part of the balance. In SC2, all units moved too smoothly and too easily, as such deathballs are always easier to setup.

SC2 allowed players to easily control Deathballs, so then they tried to balance that by making splash attacks more powerful.

In contrast, it's literally impossible to control a deathballs in SC:BW, because you can only ever select 12 units. Literally impossible to control more units (and even then, those 12 units were extremely wonky around bridges or other terrain features).

In SC:BW, the deathballs debate is innately moot. No human can control a deathballs anyway so it's not even a debate. Like controlling 48 zerglings is a feat reserved for top pros.

Further, because control of 48 zerglings is so hard, pros who COULD do it use the 4x groups of Zerglings on increasingly divergent points of the map (harassing multiple bases), rather than concentrating their efforts in one area. Might as well "tax the opponents APM" by attacking multiple locations if you have such good unit control or APM.

Post reply on HN