Starcraft reboot ideas discussion thread

[TheEconomist]

Oh well. There's other stuff to play.

This. I play so many other games now, I've completely forgotten about Blizzard.

But, that loss will always be a void left in my soil. Kind of like people talk about when they decide to leave a long-term relationship is gone. Not upset, not mad, but empty, and somehow that's worse.

[sandwich_bird]

But, that loss will always be a void left in my soil. Kind of like people talk about when they decide to leave a long-term relationship is gone. Not upset, not mad, but empty, and somehow that's worse.

Lol, pretty much. Lets go full melo-dramatic: You moved on, she moved on.. but when you randomly cross her path, you remember the good times and still think about what could have been. You might even try to stay friends in honor of your past but.. truth is, it doesn't really work because you're bound to get irritated by whatever made you break up in the first place. Best to just avoid her really. She changed and the girl you met years ago is dead.

[Turalyon]

What I don't get about Immortal is why it isn't just a D3 expansion/why it isn't compatible with PC. It doesn't look that much from different from D3 and given the simplicity of its design (comparative to the PC game itself), it can't be that hard to add it to the PC version of D3 we already have. Sure, it's still not a Diablo1/2 remaster or a D4 at the end of the day, but at least that would've been more palatable than what this is.

The Diablo IP originated as a PC game and its appeal was largely derived and gained from that, so it beggars belief as to why they would exclude PC completely. I wonder whether or not the reception would have been better if the game was billed as a completely different IP altogether. They really screwed the pooch on making, hyping and advertising this as a Diablo/IP specific game, methinks.

Immortal has the potential of killing the Diablo franchise in a similar way to what C&C4 did to that franchise. Also, one just has to look at EA and how their current continuation of the C&C property got received (Rivals); which is coincidentally a mobile only game, too. The outrage that caused made EA reconsider and release a statement that they got it wrong and will try to refocus C&C back on PC.

[ragnarok]

Immortal has the potential of killing the Diablo franchise in a similar way to what C&C4 did to that franchise. Also, one just has to look at EA and how their current continuation of the C&C property got received (Rivals); which is coincidentally a mobile only game, too. The outrage that caused made EA reconsider and release a statement that they got it wrong and will try to refocus C&C back on PC.

And here I thought EA would never admit to such a thing with C&C, thought the whole remastered C&C was it, they didn't plan to make any new C&C games after Tiberian Twilight.

[TheEconomist]

She changed and the girl you met years ago is dead.

Yep. All of that was spot on. I went to the funeral but am still in denial years later.

See you guys around elsewhere on the internet! At least, I've had time now to catch up on all kinds of games I've been missing out on since 1998 because I spent sooo much time with Blizzard games. Oh, and I'm actually watching Let's Plays .. I'm too old to game all day but I can sure whip out a phone to watch some shit now.

[sandwich_bird]

What I don't get about Immortal is why it isn't just a D3 expansion/why it isn't compatible with PC. It doesn't look that much from different from D3 and given the simplicity of its design (comparative to the PC game itself), it can't be that hard to add it to the PC version of D3 we already have. Sure, it's still not a Diablo1/2 remaster or a D4 at the end of the day, but at least that would've been more palatable than what this is.

Like they did with hearthstone and like square enix did for final fantasy Mobius. Fortnite too. I agree, I think people would have been ok with this. In fact, I kinda would have liked the idea if the mp was also cross platform. Would be a good business move in fact.

If I have to guess, I'd say the reason why they didn't has to do with the fact that they outsourced to Netease. This means that the d3 engine (which is presumably highly portable at this point) can't be used because it wouldn't be efficient for a Chinese studio to start having to figure out how to work with an in-house engine. This means that Netease has to use their own engine.

Now, if they're using Unity or Unreal then there's 0 reason not to do it because the PC version technically already exists(has to do with how the engine works)... On the other hand, if they're using an in-house, purely iOS/android engine then it would be way too complicated to port. You'd have to rewrite the entire code base. I googled around and it seems like this is the case. They have a proprietary engine called "messiah".

[TheEconomist]

In fact, I kinda would have liked the idea if the mp was also cross platform. Would be a good business move in fact.

I wouldn't have. No one liked Diablo III. Continuing down the path of it (even for a cheap quick cash grab) is doubling down on failure. Diablo III is dead. No one plays it anymore. And no one buys anything. Path of Exile and Grim Dawn get more additions in any six month period than Diablo III has since Reaper of Souls. Everything they've been doing since then is small tweaks (rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship) to try to get people to NOT hate it. They learned nothing. Diablo Immortal is just a Mobile-exclusive port/semi-expanion sequel to Diablo III. It's nothing different, if anything, it's worse. NetEase can't be anything but worse than Blizzard.

Maybe Diablo IV will be somewhat more of what people want, but this announcement was worse than nothing, and I had thought the failure would push them to change, but I hoped the same thing with Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void, and was mostly disappointed. The fact they think a mobile game was a good idea, just shows that this isn't just Blizzard in a downturn, but Blizzard no longer exists. They don't just misunderstand what made Blizzard Blizzard, they no longer care because they are associated in name only. I didn't even know Mike Morhaime left until this announcement, but I can see why he left just before BlizzCon. I'm sure he hates what the company has become. Even David Brevik (from Blizzard North) said a bit ago that Activision has been playing a slow game to assimilate Blizzard, and it's now starting to come to fruition.

Pretty soon my Battle.net launcher is going to have more Activision games on it than Blizzard games on it. And that's a sign. Time to cut our losses and learn to love something else.

... Shit, I'm complaining and discussing now ... Time to move on to something else I'll always remember this forum and the community though!

[Turalyon]

If I have to guess, I'd say the reason why they didn't has to do with the fact that they outsourced to Netease.

Blizz should've realised that this fact alone would be a hard PR sell to their fanbase (even were it not for the fact that it's a mobile only game) from the get-go given that Diablo is a core Blizzard IP. How can a fan not think that Blizz is selling out when they announce something like that? How is a fan supposed to not form this opinion of Blizz: "We don't really care about Diablo, so we're letting some other folks bandy about with it but enjoy and be grateful because it's more Diablo"? Blizz actually being surprised at such a reaction just goes on to show how out of touch they are with their Diablo fans.

I wouldn't have. No one liked Diablo III. Continuing down the path of it (even for a cheap quick cash grab) is doubling down on failure. Diablo III is dead. No one plays it anymore.

Even still, having a Diablo release somewhat connected to PC or acknowledging the platform with which it was always associated with is the least they could've done given the dearth of Diablo content over the years, no matter how shitty D3 turned out to be.

Maybe Diablo IV will be somewhat more of what people want, but this announcement was worse than nothing

Too true. I think they need some new PR/marketing people. I think they're actually making a D4 but are being hush, hush because they're trying to hold onto the mystique of when they were smaller company where they could get away with such marketing shenanigans. If they just announced they're working on a D4 earlier and then said "oh but we have this mobile game, too, in the meantime" (much like how Bethesda handled the release of Fallout4 and their Fallout Shelter mobile game), I think things would've gone a lot more smoothly. What we have here - having no Diablo news/substantial content for years and then announcing a mobile iteration of what was originally a PC game as the only thing with no details on proper sequel on top of hyping this "mysterious Diablo thing" beforehand as being something significant - one should've easily seen a shitstorm brewing miles away before it hit.

[Mislagnissa]

Blizzard's dead, forum's dead, gg.

Problem with the new Diablo is that it's a mobile game which means it's going to be a dumb F2P cash grab. Other problem is that it looks like a re-skin of other games made by the developer(Blizzard is outsourcing to Netease, a crappy Chinese studio...). Not only does it looks like a re-skin but it also looks like it was pulled together with Diablo 3 assets. Worst of all imo, the dark atmosphere of Diablo 1-2 is truly gone. Go lookup the CG trailer of Diablo 2 then check the cg trailer of Immortal.. Diablo was dark but under Blizzard 2.0, it's just another generic over the top action fantasy. They didn't learn anything from d3. Even if they make a Diablo 4, the spirit is gone so it's likely to be generic. I'd rather just play Dark Souls for my dark fantasy fix.

Also, seems like I'm the only one but I'm not happy with the look of the Warcraft 3 remastered... It blows my mind that they would now use a photo-realistic art style with de-saturated colors and etc for the Warcraft universe. I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone here... Worst is that they can't even stay consistent with it. On one part, you have these new (admittedly nice looking) photo-realistic models but then you put them on neon green grass with buildings and bridges that have fisher-price proportions. Do they even have an art director anymore!? It should be one style or the other, not a disgusting mash of both at the same time. I've seen better fan projects.

Oh well. There's other stuff to play.

The photo-realism was always present in the artwork, but the limitations of the time prevented it from appearing in the game graphics. The fisher price proportions are due to video game abstraction and appear in StarCraft 2, hence why there is a scaling mod which gives units and buildings a canon-compliant re-scaling.

I actually do not mind the Fisher Price proportions because the game would probably not be as fun if all the scales had to be realistic. Of course someone will probably create a realistic scaling mod at some point.

I am just glad that WarCraft RTS is finally getting some attention after all these years and being introduced to a new generation. Modding has gotten really big now and I can only imagine all the new mods that will come out now that WarCraft 3 has modern graphics.

All in all, I think you are blowing the negatives way out of proportion. The game is not going to be fundamentally different despite all the branding, since one of the features is backwards compatibility with the extensive library of existing custom campaigns.

[sandwich_bird]

The photo-realism was always present in the artwork, but the limitations of the time prevented it from appearing in the game graphics.

The new graphics match the aesthetic of the cinematics/box art but they are really far away from the vast majority of artworks... Just google Samewise's stuff. It's over the top cartoony with lots of saturated colors and simplified lighting/shadow physics. This is where the look of warcraft came from and it's likely intentional. They didn't have to make it cartoony. The technology was there to make a more realistic fantasy rts that could 'try' to match the cinematics. Check armies of Exigo, LotR battle for middle earth and spellforce 1. Check Dungeon Siege 1 too while you're at it since it came around that time too(though not a rts, it's top down and roughly as demanding). Take those 4 games and compare them to the style of WC3. One one side, you have an art style that wants to be photo-realistic but ends up looking cartoony because of graphic limitations. On the other side, well, you have WC3 who embraces the cartoon aesthetic with lots of saturation and etc. Then, think about WoW. You think it's a coincidence that despite the graphic upgrade and more personal view point things are still cartoony? It could have looked more like Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot but it didn't because that's not the Warcraft style. Then move on to D3 and SC2 where Blizzard intentionally made the photo-realistic style of the past become more cartoony. Also, Blizzard remade some WC3 models for the SC2 map making community and the models are what I'd expect from remaster: still super cartoony(look it up on youtube).

But now, suddenly, they decide to make Warcraft look more photo-realistic and it's supposedly because the tech has finally caught up to the intentions? Sorry, I don't buy it. The logical explanation is that they're outsourcing the models to China(like they did for SC:R) and the contractors don't have Samwise looking over their shoulders. Even if the art director doesn't like what they're doing, as long as it's not horrible, he won't ask them to change everything because this isn't a "release when ready" product. This is a quick project with a firm deadline (end of 2019 or before) and there's no place for caprices.

The fisher price proportions are due to video game abstraction and appear in StarCraft 2, hence why there is a scaling mod which gives units and buildings a canon-compliant re-scaling.

I'm not asking for life sized models, I'm asking for an art style that match the units new art style. Lookup Armies of Exigo again, this is how you make buildings that look more realistic while still respecting the gameplay demands of the RTS genre. It looks blocky yeah but it's not a freaking bouncy castle.

All in all, I think you are blowing the negatives way out of proportion. The game is not going to be fundamentally different despite all the branding, since one of the features is backwards compatibility with the extensive library of existing custom campaigns.

I'm paying for the new branding no? Makes sense that I want it to look good. Since, as you say, it's otherwise the same game, I wouldn't pay for it if the look doesn't appeal me. And yeah, I can be picky when it comes to art.