things that don't make sense in gaming

[DrSpike]

The main one is that the core development teams capable of doing such a game have had other fish to fry.

A key point was when the decision was made to go with WC3 and not SC2. Blizzard essentially decided they had won the Sci-Fi RTS war (which they had, crushingly in MP terms in particular) and wanted to capture a slightly different market. They cannibalized less of their own success going with WC, particularly given the hero elements offer different MP gameplay.

Then it became clear the money going forward was in MMOs. They no doubt figured they already have the top 2 MP RTS games and SP sales probably didn't look worth taking resources from WoW.

Ultimately a sequel to SC is inevitable, the only question is how long can SC last. It's almost a decade old - it's almost inconceivable in today's eye-candy dominated world that a game that looks so abysmal still has the pull it does. A true testament to its genius.

That's why I say it might be a non RTS game set in the SC universe next. It's total speculation based on nothing but if I were Blizzard for my next non-WoW related game I would make an updated hack and slash style game set in the SC universe. Or they could revive Ghost, again.

[Kuciwalker]

They may have captured the sci-fi RTS market, but how well does Starcraft actually sell anymore, given the number of people who already have it? Making a sequel lets them sell it to the same people all over again. And brands depreciate over time. Starcraft has more slowly that most, but at some point they have to revive it or it'll lose its value.

Civ has the empire-building TBS market pretty secure, but they've still made 4 versions

[Eli]

SMAC 2

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
It's almost a decade old - it's almost inconceivable in today's eye-candy dominated world that a game that looks so abysmal still has the pull it does.

looks just fine to me

[DrSpike]

Well you are special.

[FrostyBoy]

As someone who has never played Starcraft, can someone tell me what exactly is so wonderful about that game?

[DrSpike]

I don't have a great deal of time this morning so I'll cut straight to the chase: SC has a flawlessly balanced and deep MP experience with distinctive races.

The balance is something that hasn't been matched in any game past or present, which is all the more impressive since the races are really different. And the MP game is still evolving (and heavily played) after almost a decade.

[FrostyBoy]

One thing I have often wondered: If a game is perfectly balanced, wouldn't that make the game the same no matter what race you were?

[Dis]

The question is if they will make a sequal to Diablo 2. I bet they still have some decent play on the servers. I'm almost tempted to fire up the game, and see what kind of gamers are still hanging around this long (considering WOW is 1000 times better). Ahhh Tristram.

D2 was a cool game. But I think they realize the money is in mmo's. So I don't see a sequal to it. But you never know...

[FrostyBoy]

WoD?

I can imagine WoS would be a better decision, Diablo and Warcraft are too similar.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sn00py
One thing I have often wondered: If a game is perfectly balanced, wouldn't that make the game the same no matter what race you were?

Balance is quite different from equivalence.

Warcraft II was perfectly balanced. This was because, with the exception of a few spells, every unit on one side was a mirror image of the unit on the other side. Griffon Riders looked different from Dragons, but they had the same stats. This made it, IMO, a terrible game.

Starcraft managed to achieve balance without equivalence. The power of the Terrans is more or less equal to the power of the Protoss or Zerg - but each side has wildly different units and abilities. The very rules of the game are different for each side; Zerg units "heal" on their own, while Terrans need to spend resources to repair their units and buildings, while the Protoss can't repair at all but do have rapidly regenerating shields on everything. Playing a game as one race requires a totally different strategy than playing as another race; the beauty of Starcraft is that these wildly different sides with different fundamental game rules are still roughly equivalent in terms of overall power and ability to win.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Sn00py
One thing I have often wondered: If a game is perfectly balanced, wouldn't that make the game the same no matter what race you were?

Um, no, You're confusing "balanced" with "identical". That's what makes SC so #$^@#$ awesome: Protoss, Terra, Zerg ... extremely different, but balanced perfectly.

Balance refers to the chance of a player of one race winning when playing against a player (or players) of another race (or races). IE, the game is balanced if a Zerg player and a Terran player have, all other things (ie skill) being equal, a 50/50 chance of winning the game, with the winner being determined primarily by the skill of the two players and their choices of tactics/strategies.

In addition, StarCraft featured a great balance between early rushing and late-game action. The fact that a Zerg player can beat a Protoss player - and with quite a few more strategies than just "lol zergling rush lol" - is what is truly impressive, to me. Most other games have their "early rush" race and their "powerful if they survive the early game" race, but few balance the races such that the early rush race can win in the late game, and the powerful-late race can win in the early game. Remember that it isn't a "Strategy" game if there is only one choice (ie, rush early or you lose) ... and yet, I rarely 'ling rushed if I wasn't right next to someone, but still preferred playing Zerg to any other race, because of the fun of their mid and late game units.

Each race has different strategies and advantages, and they combine together for such an incredible gameplay that SC is still played to this day. Perhaps Blizzard hasn't made SC2 because they haven't figured out how to replicate the gameplay balance...

Compare this to Civ4. Civ4 has a far smaller distinction between races - instead of the entire unit set being unique, only a single unit is unique to each race/civ, and the same for buildings (in warlords). Yet ... Civ4 civs are far less balanced than StarCraft races; you need only go into the MP lobby and start an 18 player game with "choose your race, duplicates allowed". If you get more than 6 civs total, I'll be surprised (assuming people understand the duplicates allowed part). Although some people have their own odd favorites, there is clearly an imbalance in the civs - and that's after nerfing some of the more significant.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Dis
The question is if they will make a sequal to Diablo 2. I bet they still have some decent play on the servers. I'm almost tempted to fire up the game, and see what kind of gamers are still hanging around this long (considering WOW is 1000 times better). Ahhh Tristram.

D2 was a cool game. But I think they realize the money is in mmo's. So I don't see a sequal to it. But you never know...

NCSoft has made essentially a sequel to D2, that is very nearly a MMO. Dungeon Runners... It's even free to play, excepting that you're limited to not using the best equipment/items if you don't pay (4.99/month, I believe). Nearly identical in concept to Diablo2, however, though a bit different in execution.

[FrostyBoy]

Ok thanks for the info. See, if SC is the only real balanced game out there - and the fact I have never played it - just shows that I have no idea about good balance in games.

[snoopy369]

Well go play it then silly