Is Blizzard Creating An Already Outdated Game In An Evolving Genre?
April 2nd, 2009
In its current and publically seen state, StarCraft 2 is not going through enough of an evolution for the ailing RTS genre to stay pertinent in the changing landscape of gaming. If anything, it will mirror the standards set by StarCraft 1. This will leave the soon-to-be archaic StarCraft 2 game in a genre that has changed significantly since 1998.
The real time strategy (RTS) genre is on somewhat of a decline. It doesn’t get the same level of media and consumer interest that it got a decade ago. In the past few years, the only series that has held the RTS torch high is the Command and Conquer series.
Sure, there have been a couple of Supreme Commander games, but they appeal to a niche audience and the average gamer is overwhelmed by the ridiculous amount of unit combinations. The Command and Conquer games still follow the exact same formula set by Dune 2 that was released 17 years ago.
Supreme Commander, for all its complexity, is simply an expanded and upgraded Total Annihilation, a game that was released 15 years ago. The fundamental problem with the RTS genre is that it’s horribly stagnant. It has the same rock-paper-scissors units, base building and resource management that it had in the early nineties.
However, Relic Entertainment swooped in to save the day with the Dawn of War (DoW) series in late 2004. DoW was almost a complete rethink of how an RTS should be played. It focused on the physical battles more than base-building for example.
Resource collection was made simpler, and the emphasis was put on the fun part of an RTS: killing the other guy in the most vicious manner possible. Relic expanded this concept into World War II games with Company of Heroes, which managed to mix the fun of DoW with the tactics of a WW2 game.
Usually, WW2 games are complex and you need the patience of a Zen master to understand the games intricacies, which put the average gamer off completely. Company of Heroes managed to dodge the bullet with its simple cover system and the general application of logical solutions to complex problems. It was a phenomenal game and you should feel ashamed of yourself for not playing it.
Five years on, Dawn of War 2 came out and managed to redefine the RTS genre again by changing the nature of the single player campaign, and focusing on single groups of units and their abilities. You can upgrade individual squads, and take them through the story instead of producing a mass of nameless soldiers like you do in every other RTS. Relic is the new genre-leader, and DoW2 is breaking new ground in the pursuit of a new gaming experience. It has been a commercial and critical success and I, as an avid RTS fan, am very grateful for Relic’s continued innovation.
This brings me neatly back to Blizzard. Their contribution to the RTS genre has been rock-solid engines, excellent narratives and balanced gameplay. StarCraft was their masterpiece that appealed to competitive gamers and people like me who think gaming should always be fun. It was, in all honesty, a fluke that the South Korean market latched onto it as much as it did. Eleven years on, it is still being competitively played.
WarCraft 3 is arguably a better game, yet that has fallen by the wayside. DotA, a custom map for WarCraft 3, is the only thing that is keeping it relevant. If the South Koreans didn’t fall over themselves to play and watch StarCraft, would it have been as successful and significant in gaming culture that it is today? I’m willing to say no, especially in light of WarCraft 3’s failure on the competitive gaming circuit.
Now we are on the cusp of their masterpiece’s sequel, and the hype could not be any greater. People are buying the beta invites handed out at BlizzCon 2008 from eBay for about $200 a piece. Yet, I think StarCraft 2, in the state that we have seen it, does little to take StarCraft to the next level. Yes, it is gorgeous and there are a few new units and abilities and whatnot, but where is the true evolution? If anything, StarCraft 2 is shaping up to be StarCraft 1.5. If it was an expansion pack of sorts, I would be very pleased with it.
Wrath of the Lich King was a stellar expansion pack for World of WarCraft (WoW) and it did for WoW what StarCraft 2 is doing for StarCraft 1 – Better graphics, bits and pieces of cool new stuff, and a general evolution that keeps the game fresh and interesting. StarCraft is 11 years old; its sequel needs more than bits and pieces of new stuff to reaffirm its position as possibly the greatest RTS of all time. Dawn of War 2 has set the bar very high and I don’t think StarCraft 2 will reach it. The single player campaign has yet to be unveiled, so perhaps that could be the real evolution that I am looking for. The narrative could be mind-blowing and the campaign structure could be innovative and fresh. However Blizzard refuses to tell us anything about it. Until they do, I have my doubts.
To give you an indication of Relics rise as the market leader, The Escapist magazine had a poll where readers were asked to vote between Relic and Blizzard in an epic showdown. After accusations of cheating (it’s a forum poll, why would people cheat?), and a draw, the poll went into overtime. Relic won it by 0.1 of a percent. The victory could not have been any narrower, but they toppled a giant.
In part 2, I will look at the influences of the Activision-Blizzard merger and the prominent StarCraft community on StarCraft 2’s development. In the meantime, what do you think?
im begging 
Plizzz send CD key at...
Loading ...
21 responses so far
poochie // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:31 am
hi,
great article. i think your right, what we have seen from starcraft 2 so far is just starcraft with better graphics ( compared to stacraft 1 not compared to down of war 2) and a few new units exchanged.
i think the singleplayer of sc2 might be better than dow2, because lets be honest dow2 singleplayer wasn’t that good. it was fun for a while but it got pretty much same twoards the ending.
poochie
btw: first
J. Wade // Apr 2, 2009 at 9:37 am
This is a well thought out, well written article. I think you’re forgetting a single, very important factor, however; nostalgia. Certain groups of “hardcore” Starcraft fans don’t WANT significant change. They want a fresh experience in an old, familiar world (er, universe). Seeing old characters, old units, old buildings, shiny and new and with a few new tricks up their sleeve will be more than enough for this game to be a blockbuster success. Best RTS game ever? Probably not. Best selling RTS ever? I wouldn’t be surprised. And which one really counts for more? One last thought: If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
ArvenDragon // Apr 2, 2009 at 7:22 pm
A very detailed and interesting article, but there are many things I would like to argue.
First, Blizzard has never made a BAD game in a series it was dedicated to. No other company would be dedicated (or crazy) enough to scrap a million-dollar project (StarCraft: Ghost) which would certainly repay itself just because it felt that the project was not up to its standards.
Blizzard WILL try hard, and they are making StarCraft II much faster-paced and exciting.
Also, Blizzard is up to patch 1.16.1 with StarCraft, and 1.22 with WarCraft, showing dedication to its games, whereas many other companies might leave the game at 1.01 or 1.02, or not patch at all.
Second, it is not simply the RTS genre that is evolving in different directions, and also with many originals. The FPS shooter has generally remained the same since the legendary Goldeneye, just with better graphics, perhaps a few interesting elements and guns, but there are few truly individual games.
Like many other of StarCraft’s former competitors, Blizzard is taking a good step and following what gamers WANT. Gamers like modification and user-created maps. Check. Gamers like balance. Check. Gamers like graphics. Check. Gamers like epic battlers and superunits. Check. Gamers like epic stories. Check. Whats not to like?
The Dawn of War II multiplayer is not as balanced and its single-player was horrendous after the few novelty missions. The small squad-based warfare became, in reality, RPGs with a strategical twist. There is no strategy involved but a few soldiers beating each other to the death. No management of bases, no map control, no etc.
On the other hand, there is Supreme Commander, with its cloned factions, massive battles and epic warfare. Map control is necessary to secure the resources needed to field a massive army, yet an army is needed to prevent being overwhelmed early on.
In the middle are countless others, with classics such as Age of Empires and Command and Conquer, which StarCraft is similar to, but StarCraft alone has limited resources and fast-paced exciting action.
Three, I <3 SC!
Karl // Apr 3, 2009 at 1:04 am
WarCraft is up to 1.23 btw.
Ok the point of Blizzard making what gamers want is what the next part of this article will be. So I’ll discuss it then.
Goldeneye was legendary on the for the multiplayer, the single player was complete ass.
That genre has evolved. Look at Gears, Half Life 2, Portal, FEAR. There has been alot of variation in the genre so far.
You cant deny that Dawn of War has had a profound impact on the genre. I remember the first time I saw a Juggernaut pick up an enemy and do a instant kill animation, it was AWESOME.
The only fundamental differences between C&C and SC is C&C had no unit cap and 1 resource, while SC had a unit cap and two resources. Boths resources limited and the action was fast paced though.
Darren // Apr 4, 2009 at 7:44 am
This is an opinion, like a but hole everyone is entitled to one.
ephos // Apr 6, 2009 at 5:55 am
Why does Starcraft 2 need to be innovative just for the sake of being innovative?
Making things BETTER would be evolutionary, making things DIFFERENT isn’t, it is just that: DIFFERENT.
Starcraft 1 did (almost) everything right, why change that when you can improve it?
If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
Dame // Apr 6, 2009 at 7:23 am
I can see what you are trying to say, but the question is, why does a game need to be innovative to be considered good?
A excellent gaming experience is what most people look for. This involves producing a polished and fun game. Whether it is based on innovation or not is not the point.
Starcraft 2 will no doubt provide this, and expect it to break record sales.
Karl // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:22 am
I believe the fundamental point is the genre is not being pushed forward by StarCraft 2. It is, more than likely, continuing the precedent set by StarCraft 1 and Dune 2.
I have no doubt that it will be a tight, excellent game. But I wish Blizzard tried abit harder to create something slightly different and mixed it up a bit.
@Aphos- that “if it aint broke dont fix it” is a load of nonsense. The gaming medium relies on developers pushing it forward, otherwise we would all still be playing Pong.
ALL entertainment mediums need innovation for it to remain in pop culture and viable form of entertainment. The most popular MMO today, World of WarCraft, is constantly evolving for a very good reason – it keeps the game and experience fresh and interesting.
Moradon // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The main problem the article writer is making is that he makes the point that DoW2 pushed the genre forward. This is incorrect. DoW2 didn’t push the genre forward, it pushed it sideways. It provided a unique way of playing RTSs that appealed to many people, but it did not evolve the genre
However, a lot of you guys need to realize that “many” does not equal “all”. For every person who loves the cover system for DoW2 and CoH, there is a person who dislikes it and wants nothing of it. For every person who loves squads, there is another that hates them. Personally, I don’t mind these features, but I would still rather play a non-squad non-cover game anyday.
If Relic was really pushing the genre forward, then their features would be staples that every single future RTS would have to include, but that hasn’t happened. Relic’s features are innovative, but also have their own sets of disadvantages that don’t appeal to everyone. AI-controlled squads add realism, but decrease the amount of control you have over the individual units. Cover adds realism and strategic positioning, but also restricts the amount of places you can fight at and slows the game play down. The only “true” evolution Relic has done is make the single player more deep, but Blizzard already looks like it’s gonna surpass Relic in that area with the trilogy. I’m not saying Relic is bad company because I love their games, but they are not evolutionary leaps in the genre. Rather they are simply fun sidesteps into new territory.
Starcraft to this day is still being played around the world, and this has happened for a reason. Blizzard managed to find the best formula and balance to create one of the greatest RTS games of all time. They SHOULD stick to that formula, and deviating from it just for the sake of being different is a disservice to RTS fans everywhere. SC2 needs to be BETTER, not different.
SC2 is sure to give us one of the best single player experiences in an RTS, a fully revamped Battle.net, an amazing map editor, tightly balanced multiplayer, polished-yet-accessible graphics, and being perhaps to only game to truly take competitive e-sports seriously. These are more than enough to create a great game, and things like e-sports focus and Bnet 2.0 are things that appeal to all RTS fans alike. THAT is evolution.
Karl // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:24 am
Moradon- Excellent comment, with lots of good points. However, you failed to see acknowledge how the Dawn of War series had pushed the genre forward by making the very foundation of the genre simpler – Base building and resource collection.
You cannot deny that Dawn of War is a fun game, with the emphasis on battles etc.
Your comment on ‘sidesteps into new territory’ is interesting. I want to agree and disagree with it at the same time. I think my brain might explode from all this genre theory…
anonymous // May 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I don’t see how making resource management easier is evolving anything, rather just simplifying it for the masses to make it easier to play. Its taking out features not evolving things, i wouldn’t even say its particularly innovative.
Stigma.Chaos // May 15, 2009 at 1:27 am
I do not see DoW as a revolutionary step in the RTS genre. They merely took out most of the macro (making the game simpler) and focused making other things more refined. Halo: Combat Evolved does this kind of thing too, adapting the RTS genre to a simpler form that is more palatable to the lowest common denominator.
I for one do not want to see simplification of gameplay. The best part of Starcraft is that its too immensely complicated to master completely. A game that appeals to the masses doesn’t redefine the genre, it just focuses on a different target group.
Personally, I can’t think of many more things Blizzard could do to revolutionize their game without taking away the magic of the original. It is true that they are not innovating major gameplay changes in the RTS genre, but, I can’t really think of any that would not hurt it. With RTSes in general, I don’t think theres much you can really innovate without changing the genre. Also, how could they call it a sequel if its a completely different game?
It comes down to what you look for in an RTS game. But at the same time, I don’t see Dawn of War being played by pro-leagues in cash tournaments…
BeskarKomrk // May 17, 2009 at 12:26 am
Great article.
Starcraft was and is a great game. The gameplay is well balanced and varied, and it deserves the acclaim it gets. I don’t actually like the game that much for other reasons, but strictly in terms of gameplay, it deserves its spot in the pantheon of classics.
I agree that the second one should be changing up the formula more. I agree that the genre has almost completely stagnated. I had hoped that Starcraft 2 could be the game to push things forward. I don’t see that happening, unfortunately, and that makes me sad. I have a feeling that, no matter how good the game is, there will be a huge backlash against it. On one side, the people who wanted more change aren’t getting it. On the other, the people who have played starcraft for 15 years will have to adapt to differences, which could be very frustrating. It will be extremely difficult for Blizzard to please one, let alone both, of these sides; the way they are heading now makes me think they won’t please either.
I’m not planning on buying the game; suffice it to say, however well balanced the gameplay is, at a very fundamental level it is incredibly unrealistic, as every RTS ever made is. I had hoped Starcraft 2 would change this, and it isn’t.
I don’t want the same great game. I want a new great game.
Lakaniss // May 17, 2009 at 11:17 am
I totally disagree, DoWII is actually a big failure compared to the original DoW and its expansions. The multiplayer competition in DoWII is much more like a game of chess then a real RTS battle. Sure the weak minds might like it, but you cant tell that a game is good only because a lot of retard likes it. For a game to evolve it need to have a large competitive community, something Relic never achieved….
RyanD // May 20, 2009 at 2:28 am
How can you say War3 failed on the competitive gaming circuit when, not counting Korea, it is the most competitive and successful RTS E-sport? Starcraft is a close second, DoTA is 3rd, and DoW2 has probably 1/50th of the e-sports scene that either of the others enjoy.
Karl // May 20, 2009 at 8:31 am
Most of the top E-Sport competitions dont host War3 anymore. Usually, it will be DotA.
J Type // May 22, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Hi Karl,
I just posted a response article over at StarFeeder, here:
http://starfeeder.gameriot.com/blogs/Looking-Forward-1/Can-Blizzard-do-it-again
Squishy_Paladin // May 24, 2009 at 6:41 am
Your article is an interesting viewpoint. The fights are indeed the most exciting point of an RTS, yet there has to be a certain level of skill in a game for it to be exciting to watch and arguably, to play(especially for a long period of time). What is the point, for example, of playing a game if everyone has the ability to do everything there is to do within a week or two. If you compare WC3 and DoW2, micro wise WC3 is far more game changing, intense and in depth, yet the macro is still more in depth as well.
DoW, 1 and 2, are not bad games, they are actually very good. However, making a game easier to play does not make it better. Sure, it makes it more accessible and perhaps more fun for newcomers to become involved in, yet the fact is that it makes the game far too easy. It’s supposed to be a game, a challenge, a competition between you and someone/something else, not an interactive movie. I used to be someone who hated multiplayer, hated competition in games, always playing single player. I could always win that way, I was the best. I soon learnt the real challenge lies in multiplayer, the continual challenge and self-improvement, having to be creative and innovate rather than do the same thing to win. Why have Blizzard been so successful? Because they’re games are hard and have great depth in skill level, yet are extremely well balanced. Why is WC3/SC so fun to watch? Because I see things that take immense skill. People like Moon and Boxer will do things I can only dream of pulling off, the same as people like David Beckham or Michael Jordan, for example. It’s enthralling to watch others who are so gifted.
Also, how can you claim the WC3 e-sports scene is a failure? It’s been going, and still is, for about 6 years. Sure, it’s coming to an end but it’s easily the second most popular e-sport RTS. How can you even say it fails when DoW has virtually no or very little competitive scene.
However, I will agree that SC2 does need to be different than SC. I can understand the SC scene being very protective of SC1′s competitive game and scene, yet the way some people want it makes you think “Isn’t that just the same as SC1?” Big gameplay changes and mechanics need to be introduced and have been already, to an extent, yet those changes should not make the game extremely simplistic or easy. Does it feel like an expansion? Perhaps, in certain aspects but the game will be different enough to be new and fresh, yet retain the same enthrallment and skill-level of SC. I certainly hope for a more micro-based game in SC2, yet with the explosive pace of SC (compared to the somewhat slow WC3) and for sure, a good amount of base and resource management. Basically, SC’s macro and and speed, but with more emphasis on WC3-like micro.
Sure, games are reaching an age where they are based on accessibility and a wide audience, but I believe there will always be a competitive audience and scene for RTS games, which will continue to flock to Blizzard’s games; just look at the SC following 11 years on. The game barely changed patch wise for a long time (same for WC3, which has been basically the same patchwise for a few years now). Yet Blizzard always had a depth in their games where the players, not the producer, could change the face of the game completely (known essentially as the meta-game). That’s what makes it exciting, that’s why, unless Blizzard gets it completely wrong, which I haven’t the slightest worry about, I’ll be playing SC2 in the very near future; it’s a game I can play for a lifetime and still not know or be able to do a quarter of the things the best can do, the fact I’ll always be chasing others, looking to improve. That, to me anyway, is a game.
RoryC // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Great article. I do see your point but I have to disagree.
I have been playing SC since it came out and never have I let it go. The game is just so much fun. No matter what game I play none lasted as long as SC has for me. DoW and CoH were not bad I just think that SC is better. I never really liked the cover systems they always seemed to make strongpoints on the map while in Starcraft all the maps are mirrored meaning no one gets a terain advantage.
I also have to argue about what you said about South Korea. If they had not latched on to it I’m not sure it would have matter when I was a kid no one really cared what South Korea did. They just saw and bought a great game. I also think the RTS market is still going strong well maybe not like the FPS or RPG markets but it is not stagnant. I have been buying and playing RTS’s all my life and they are the only games I don’t throw out, trade, sell on eBay etc. The games just having a lasting appeal for me.
I also don’t ever remember being this excited for any game sequel. SC never needs to change. What Blizzard is doing right now is perfect in my eyes (but they could do it a little faster). I may not be an expert critict but I am the consumer. I am the one who buys the game. Nothing is going to change my mind about this game I am going to buy it and I will love it.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go play Starcraft.
WelchMelva // Mar 3, 2010 at 8:42 am
I took my first loans when I was not very old and it aided my relatives very much. Nevertheless, I need the short term loan also.
Patrick // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Dont ever diss Supreme Commander!!Its a great game. I dont get how it could be considered a niche game among rts games, unless you are talking about scale which I suspect is not exacly what the guy meant. Its a superior game to c&c and its in a class of tis own. Its certainly more fun than DoW2. I got the sequel the other day and dont really know what to think of it ye,t but its certainly not what I was expecting, and I dont really believe it to be much of a sequel at all, in fact, its more like another version of the first one. What happened to Chris Taylor here? Whyd he bother making a sequel at all?Seems like he started out to make a sequel and half way through decided he didnt want to do it, and what we got was sup com version 2.
Leave a Comment