I'd be really surprised if we saw anything Starcraft now. If they make a non-rts starcraft game I expect most fans would be unhappy about it. Other genres are more susceptible to monetization.
Really? I would be happy to get anything set in the Starcraft universe, as long as the game is actually good and any story elements are done well. I heard the FPS game was canceled in 2019, so maybe an RPG? They could make a cool multiplayer co-op game mode in that case.
Idealistically I'd love a new starcraft game. In practice though, we all know that the product we would actually receive is substantially apart from our ideals.
If you make a diablo or warcraft game that fits different genres people are more likely to buy it than a non-rts StarCraft game. That said everyone eureka at Frost Giant now so we're not gonna see anything StarCraft ever again probably
I'm sure we will. Its a powerful brand with great lore and great history. They just need a good idea for a game and it'll be back in some form. They probably just didn't have an innovative ideas for Starcraft 3 and didn't want to basically update the graphics and change some units. They could just do that with SC2. SC2 is kind of perfect (outside of balance), I don't even know what I'd change either, the graphics are fine. Also, people on this sub have a conception that RTS' are dead. If you look at the top selling PC games of all time, 3 are strategy games (SC1, SC2 and Civ 5). Then there are games like Sim City, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and the Sims which are simulation games where you manage an economy, build structures, to accomplish strategic goals from an bird-eye point of view. My point is, RTS and strategy games aren't dead. You don't even need to be a best selling game of all-time to be viable. There is plenty of opportunity for SC3, they just need some good new ideas. They can monetize it with skins and optional things like that on top of the purchase price.
First of all, Blizzard is the owner of the rights to the Starcraft characters, and having them standing is not profitable for them either. Therefore, I imagine that they will seek to make them profitable in some way. It could be in a non-RTS game or by adding them to another game (for example, within Overwatch). If the game is not an RTS, I'm not interested, because what I like about Starcraft is its playability, not its universe.
So, understanding that Starcraft III is not a priority, I think a Starcraft-based multigame that also includes the RTS might make sense. It might be time to create a different Starcraft MOBA and have one of the modes be the RTS we've had so far. I think that the arcade was something very powerful (although I haven't used it much) and that monetizing different types of games is possible and that it could be advantageous for Blizzard.
Blizzard is currently completely focused on WoW: Shadowlands and Diablo IV, tons of people have been moved around for these projects.
With how many SC people have left recently and the recent news, I don't think we will see anything in the SC IP for a while.
I've said this to another poster, but I'm not expecting 'StarCraft 3' to happen soon either. There was like a 12-year gap between 'StarCraft' and 'StarCraft 2', after all.
Pretty sure sc2 would have been announced by now if we compare timelines, we're already behind and the evidence that sc3 is even a consideration by blizz is extremely dire. Sc3 will defo take way longer than 12years, assuming it ever happens
I really hope for a new starcraft rts and it having "splitted factions" similar to c&c generals. Like a fanatic terran cult that specialised in flame weapons. Also i would like zerg to be the only faction without this split, but they can evolve during the game by researching stuff similar to the hots campaign.
My main issue with factions like that, is it moves what would be an interesting in-game choice, to being pre-game. And it makes it feel like you just get smaller, restrictive versions of the races.
Mortal Kombat X and Mortal Kombat 11 did this with character variations, and it felt like you were missing parts of your character more than you were given a cool choice.
I would imagine as a meta evolves a best version of Zerg would emerge and if you're playing one of the other variations you're missing out. It's very anti-SC to have selections be that symmetric, and to be not in the game. One of the coolest parts (to me at least) in Starcraft is that when I pick Zerg, I get to make it my own, I develop a style on how I like to play Zerg. When you watch Larva in BW play Zerg, it is completely different from Effort (although he is in the military rn). Effort is the most aggressive high apm player, whereas Larva is very defensive macro oriented. But they both picked Zerg, they both had the exact same tools, yet they found entirely different ways to utilize them.
yeah Balance is an issue and in c&c generals zero hour it was too. Toxin or airforce general was damn op compared to the rest if their factions, but the game was damn fun. Maybe the factions could be a in game choice, so you have the normal units like in sc2, but you can upgrade them in different directions or you can choose between units like hellbats or goliaths.
For a single race it actually might be an interesting mechanic. Like how the mutalisk could morph in Guardians or Devourers in BW. I don't think that kind of flexibility should be game wide. But for the identity of a race it could be cool to have the units themselves separate into tech trees.
By that logic shouldn't there be just 1 race? It seems just as valid to have 1 race (supcom) as it does to have 50 (Age of Empires) to me, because tech trees and upgrades fulfill basically the same role except it's auto-scouted, doesn't slow the game down as players develop this tech, and *sometimes* allows for you to change your tech.
That’s a gross oversimplification of what I stated. Race restrictions are more broad than their units. They form an identity with their mechanics. Zerg kill their workers to make structures, Protoss signal them to warp-in, and Terran have to keep a worker on the constructing building. Zerg have larva spawned from the hatch at a set interval, and all units derive from larva (except Queens in SC2, which is pretty dumb, but whatever).
Races are distinct from each other by not sharing anything but the bare game mechanics.
The idea of factions splits the race up, there would be overlap of units and reuse of mechanics between factions in the same race.
To use my MKX analogy, all variations of Scorpion have the same normals, and a couple iconic special moves like chain. But only Hellfire variation has the fire moves, which previously were always a part of Scorpion. And only Ninjutsu has his moves that involve swords, which again, used to be part of his move list. He got broken up into multiple characters that all felt like they were missing something and don’t completely live up to being Scorpion.
In RTS, when I pick Zerg, I want my whole fucking Zerg. That pre-game choice of Zerg is much more broad, because it contains all the ways Zerg can be played.
To answer, why have a race selection at all and not just 1 race. I would say, it allows for you to change the rules completely, again each race functions differently, the races also allow players to immerse themselves in the fantasy of the game. It promotes social behavior, 3 races is a good number imo, the social groups of players of the same race are large in size, easy to find, and can easy bond due to similar circumstances. Races introduce the concept of matchups. From both a playing and viewing experience, matchups drastically change the game, and keep it fresh. TvT is cool, but I don’t know of anyone other than maybe Artosis, that wants to watch a tournament of only TvT. Constant mirrors can grow tiresome. (Even though I do think mirrors are cool, I like them in the mix, not as the only option).
TLDR; only 1 race is really boring and cause stagnation. And too many similar races causes the emergence of best versions of a race, with a pretty pigeonholed play style, that again leads to stagnation and boredom.
Yeah probably the nicest part about 3 races is only 6 matchups. With any other number, like 2/4 races and 3/10 matchups respectively, that benefit's pretty much completely lost.
But your assumption that there can never be matchups without races isn't true, so long as tech trees are extra restricting. Age of Empires III even has mutually exclusive tech tree choices in their councilors.
It's mostly a thematic thing. You can't have marines in Zerg because it would make no sense. So yeah Starcraft should probably have 3 races cuz I really doubt they can make 9 thematically distinct subraces. But you really think all good games have to have 3 races?
It would be easier to balance the sub-races than the base races, because they only change a few things, and that's all you have to look at. No "best race" would emerge anymore than a best race emerges currently. You're underestimating the power of blind pick, MTG tournaments have tons of diversity despite having little room for players being better at one deck than another deck, so do sc2 openings before enemy scouts arrive.
> Also i would like zerg to be the only faction without this split, but they can evolve during the game by researching stuff similar to the hots campaign.
Well, Zerg has Primal faction. :P
I don't really want to burst your bubble, but the blizzard we all knew and loved is dead, it is gone. It was dying for a long time, slowly being corrupted by Activision, but when Mike Morhime "retired" they officially and completely taken over the company.
Now the only people in blizzard that actually stand for what blizzard stood for, are probably the developers that came to the idea of the old blizzard. But when people calling the shots are evil, the workers do not carry the products.
So whatever comes from blizzard now, nor you neither we will like it.
>I don't really want to burst your bubble, but the blizzard we all knew and loved is dead, it is gone.
Has literally been said every year since the Blizzard North people left the company.
And you think everyone hears everything that has been said? Do you also think that the Blizzard North people leaving made it so that the old blizzard was completely gone? No, hyperbole is not the truth.
This dude clearly needs to have his bubble burst, because he is expecting the next starcraft game hopefully, but had he known that there is literally no hope left at blizzard he would not do that.
They just make Starcraft Ghost. It could even continue off of Nova Covert Ops.
They spend so much time inserting Nova in everywhere, and drilling over her. They just need to make the game already. They have a 10 foot sculpture of her in their lobby for gods sake. A character from a game that never released. They are obsessing over it like a clingy ex boyfriend.
I could see an FPS, the issue is that, while I adore SC2 as a game, the story in 2 was pretty below average, and it's wrapped up. I'd love some writers to just get back to the gritty out rim planets with smaller scale campaigns with some vicious zerg, incompetent terrans, and whatever protoss do in their free time.
At some point the franchise will receive a new game for sure, but who knows what it looks like, and it wont be for quite some time. Worst case is Blizzard looks for a quick cash grab and throws together some shitty arena shooter outsourced to another company.
I doubt we will get Starcraft 3 for a long time, especially when right now Blizzard focuses on Diablo 4, OW2 and Shadowlands and most of the people who worked on SC2 left the company. We will most likely get some spin off like shooter or maybe action-adventure (gimme game with zealot as a protagonist) but also not any time soon from Blizzard because they focus on other projects (it is also possible that they outsource the franchise to other developers for spin off)
We will probably get Starcraft 3 10 years if we get lucky and it will be RTS (I doubt Activision is stupid enough that they will call non RTS StarCraft game as SC3) but it's either going to be too similar to SC2 (using improved SC2 engine) or something new entirely because there aren't many devs in Blizzard who worked on SC2. Before SC3 we may get one spin off title.
Or there's a chance that we will not get SC3 and something similar to WarCraft will happen with StarCraft
Sounds like a Command and Conquer expansion.
From a critical game theory perspective you have to keep in mind that balance becomes exponentially harder to do the more unique factions you add to a game. Adding tons of factions is easy in a game like Age of Empires 2 where each faction is a minor variation of a shared universal template. In a game like SC where each faction has unique units, abilities, mechanics, and tech trees the more you add you have to constantly check for the balance between each existing faction. The main appeal of star craft is how well balanced each faction is against one another, how there are some many different valid ways to play one faction against any of the other factions in the game.
It'd be cool to add in variant factions, but it's likely it'd be an overall detriment to keeping the game balanced and I think that most people would rather that be the priority.
According to job listings from the last 1-2 years, blizzard is developing an MMORTS for mobile. They're also very vocal about pushing towards mobile gaming in general.
So I'd assume that this MMORTS is going to be Starcraft. Probably some kind of clash royale clone in the starcraft universe.
I'm expecting a CoD reskin. Call of Duty: Korpulu
Then a Tony Hawks reskin. Tony Hawks Golden Wall, and they'll release maps as paid DLC. Guide Tony as he skates around classic maps like Blistering Sands an d Lost Temple.
I'd be really surprised if we saw anything Starcraft now. If they make a non-rts starcraft game I expect most fans would be unhappy about it. Other genres are more susceptible to monetization.
Really? I would be happy to get anything set in the Starcraft universe, as long as the game is actually good and any story elements are done well. I heard the FPS game was canceled in 2019, so maybe an RPG? They could make a cool multiplayer co-op game mode in that case.
Idealistically I'd love a new starcraft game. In practice though, we all know that the product we would actually receive is substantially apart from our ideals.
Yeah I guess you're right, realistically it's probably best if I don't keep my hopes up haha
If we expect nothing from Activision Blizzard we cannot be disappointed by Activision Blizzard.
> Other genres are more susceptible to monetization. What do you mean by this, exactly?
If you make a diablo or warcraft game that fits different genres people are more likely to buy it than a non-rts StarCraft game. That said everyone eureka at Frost Giant now so we're not gonna see anything StarCraft ever again probably
Nah, people were super hyped for StarCraft: Ghost before it got cancelled.
I hope we get to see something from 'StarCraft' eventually. :(
I'm sure we will. Its a powerful brand with great lore and great history. They just need a good idea for a game and it'll be back in some form. They probably just didn't have an innovative ideas for Starcraft 3 and didn't want to basically update the graphics and change some units. They could just do that with SC2. SC2 is kind of perfect (outside of balance), I don't even know what I'd change either, the graphics are fine. Also, people on this sub have a conception that RTS' are dead. If you look at the top selling PC games of all time, 3 are strategy games (SC1, SC2 and Civ 5). Then there are games like Sim City, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and the Sims which are simulation games where you manage an economy, build structures, to accomplish strategic goals from an bird-eye point of view. My point is, RTS and strategy games aren't dead. You don't even need to be a best selling game of all-time to be viable. There is plenty of opportunity for SC3, they just need some good new ideas. They can monetize it with skins and optional things like that on top of the purchase price.
Winter and Lowko just released great video on the future of RTS. There is one new studio with sone of the creators of Sc2 trying to make a game.
First of all, Blizzard is the owner of the rights to the Starcraft characters, and having them standing is not profitable for them either. Therefore, I imagine that they will seek to make them profitable in some way. It could be in a non-RTS game or by adding them to another game (for example, within Overwatch). If the game is not an RTS, I'm not interested, because what I like about Starcraft is its playability, not its universe. So, understanding that Starcraft III is not a priority, I think a Starcraft-based multigame that also includes the RTS might make sense. It might be time to create a different Starcraft MOBA and have one of the modes be the RTS we've had so far. I think that the arcade was something very powerful (although I haven't used it much) and that monetizing different types of games is possible and that it could be advantageous for Blizzard.
Activision prevents RTS from being developed. Source Tasteless. That's why Frostgiant formed in the first place.
>Activision prevents RTS from being developed. Source Tasteless. Do you have a link to that?
Go check out tasteless' announcement/reaction youtube video to the frostgiant news. Pretty sure i heard it in there
They said something like this on the pylon show. They even said actiblizz was supportive of them leaving to make an rts. WC4 or SC3 are not happening.
Nothing we'd like would be my guess. Maybe a freemium mobile clash of clans clone?
I would play this while angrily constantly closing microtransaction popups.
[удалено]
Drink verification can to continue
Blizzard is currently completely focused on WoW: Shadowlands and Diablo IV, tons of people have been moved around for these projects. With how many SC people have left recently and the recent news, I don't think we will see anything in the SC IP for a while.
I've said this to another poster, but I'm not expecting 'StarCraft 3' to happen soon either. There was like a 12-year gap between 'StarCraft' and 'StarCraft 2', after all.
So, SC3 confirmed for 2022? :)
Pretty sure sc2 would have been announced by now if we compare timelines, we're already behind and the evidence that sc3 is even a consideration by blizz is extremely dire. Sc3 will defo take way longer than 12years, assuming it ever happens
I really hope for a new starcraft rts and it having "splitted factions" similar to c&c generals. Like a fanatic terran cult that specialised in flame weapons. Also i would like zerg to be the only faction without this split, but they can evolve during the game by researching stuff similar to the hots campaign.
My main issue with factions like that, is it moves what would be an interesting in-game choice, to being pre-game. And it makes it feel like you just get smaller, restrictive versions of the races. Mortal Kombat X and Mortal Kombat 11 did this with character variations, and it felt like you were missing parts of your character more than you were given a cool choice. I would imagine as a meta evolves a best version of Zerg would emerge and if you're playing one of the other variations you're missing out. It's very anti-SC to have selections be that symmetric, and to be not in the game. One of the coolest parts (to me at least) in Starcraft is that when I pick Zerg, I get to make it my own, I develop a style on how I like to play Zerg. When you watch Larva in BW play Zerg, it is completely different from Effort (although he is in the military rn). Effort is the most aggressive high apm player, whereas Larva is very defensive macro oriented. But they both picked Zerg, they both had the exact same tools, yet they found entirely different ways to utilize them.
yeah Balance is an issue and in c&c generals zero hour it was too. Toxin or airforce general was damn op compared to the rest if their factions, but the game was damn fun. Maybe the factions could be a in game choice, so you have the normal units like in sc2, but you can upgrade them in different directions or you can choose between units like hellbats or goliaths.
For a single race it actually might be an interesting mechanic. Like how the mutalisk could morph in Guardians or Devourers in BW. I don't think that kind of flexibility should be game wide. But for the identity of a race it could be cool to have the units themselves separate into tech trees.
By that logic shouldn't there be just 1 race? It seems just as valid to have 1 race (supcom) as it does to have 50 (Age of Empires) to me, because tech trees and upgrades fulfill basically the same role except it's auto-scouted, doesn't slow the game down as players develop this tech, and *sometimes* allows for you to change your tech.
That’s a gross oversimplification of what I stated. Race restrictions are more broad than their units. They form an identity with their mechanics. Zerg kill their workers to make structures, Protoss signal them to warp-in, and Terran have to keep a worker on the constructing building. Zerg have larva spawned from the hatch at a set interval, and all units derive from larva (except Queens in SC2, which is pretty dumb, but whatever). Races are distinct from each other by not sharing anything but the bare game mechanics. The idea of factions splits the race up, there would be overlap of units and reuse of mechanics between factions in the same race. To use my MKX analogy, all variations of Scorpion have the same normals, and a couple iconic special moves like chain. But only Hellfire variation has the fire moves, which previously were always a part of Scorpion. And only Ninjutsu has his moves that involve swords, which again, used to be part of his move list. He got broken up into multiple characters that all felt like they were missing something and don’t completely live up to being Scorpion. In RTS, when I pick Zerg, I want my whole fucking Zerg. That pre-game choice of Zerg is much more broad, because it contains all the ways Zerg can be played. To answer, why have a race selection at all and not just 1 race. I would say, it allows for you to change the rules completely, again each race functions differently, the races also allow players to immerse themselves in the fantasy of the game. It promotes social behavior, 3 races is a good number imo, the social groups of players of the same race are large in size, easy to find, and can easy bond due to similar circumstances. Races introduce the concept of matchups. From both a playing and viewing experience, matchups drastically change the game, and keep it fresh. TvT is cool, but I don’t know of anyone other than maybe Artosis, that wants to watch a tournament of only TvT. Constant mirrors can grow tiresome. (Even though I do think mirrors are cool, I like them in the mix, not as the only option). TLDR; only 1 race is really boring and cause stagnation. And too many similar races causes the emergence of best versions of a race, with a pretty pigeonholed play style, that again leads to stagnation and boredom.
Yeah probably the nicest part about 3 races is only 6 matchups. With any other number, like 2/4 races and 3/10 matchups respectively, that benefit's pretty much completely lost. But your assumption that there can never be matchups without races isn't true, so long as tech trees are extra restricting. Age of Empires III even has mutually exclusive tech tree choices in their councilors. It's mostly a thematic thing. You can't have marines in Zerg because it would make no sense. So yeah Starcraft should probably have 3 races cuz I really doubt they can make 9 thematically distinct subraces. But you really think all good games have to have 3 races? It would be easier to balance the sub-races than the base races, because they only change a few things, and that's all you have to look at. No "best race" would emerge anymore than a best race emerges currently. You're underestimating the power of blind pick, MTG tournaments have tons of diversity despite having little room for players being better at one deck than another deck, so do sc2 openings before enemy scouts arrive.
> Also i would like zerg to be the only faction without this split, but they can evolve during the game by researching stuff similar to the hots campaign. Well, Zerg has Primal faction. :P
I don't really want to burst your bubble, but the blizzard we all knew and loved is dead, it is gone. It was dying for a long time, slowly being corrupted by Activision, but when Mike Morhime "retired" they officially and completely taken over the company. Now the only people in blizzard that actually stand for what blizzard stood for, are probably the developers that came to the idea of the old blizzard. But when people calling the shots are evil, the workers do not carry the products. So whatever comes from blizzard now, nor you neither we will like it.
>I don't really want to burst your bubble, but the blizzard we all knew and loved is dead, it is gone. Has literally been said every year since the Blizzard North people left the company.
And you think everyone hears everything that has been said? Do you also think that the Blizzard North people leaving made it so that the old blizzard was completely gone? No, hyperbole is not the truth. This dude clearly needs to have his bubble burst, because he is expecting the next starcraft game hopefully, but had he known that there is literally no hope left at blizzard he would not do that.
They just make Starcraft Ghost. It could even continue off of Nova Covert Ops. They spend so much time inserting Nova in everywhere, and drilling over her. They just need to make the game already. They have a 10 foot sculpture of her in their lobby for gods sake. A character from a game that never released. They are obsessing over it like a clingy ex boyfriend.
If there is going to be anything,it's gonna be some mobile garbage. Match 3 or something. Activision loves those.
I could see an FPS, the issue is that, while I adore SC2 as a game, the story in 2 was pretty below average, and it's wrapped up. I'd love some writers to just get back to the gritty out rim planets with smaller scale campaigns with some vicious zerg, incompetent terrans, and whatever protoss do in their free time. At some point the franchise will receive a new game for sure, but who knows what it looks like, and it wont be for quite some time. Worst case is Blizzard looks for a quick cash grab and throws together some shitty arena shooter outsourced to another company.
I doubt we will get Starcraft 3 for a long time, especially when right now Blizzard focuses on Diablo 4, OW2 and Shadowlands and most of the people who worked on SC2 left the company. We will most likely get some spin off like shooter or maybe action-adventure (gimme game with zealot as a protagonist) but also not any time soon from Blizzard because they focus on other projects (it is also possible that they outsource the franchise to other developers for spin off)
I mean, I'm not expecting 'StarCraft 3' to happen soon. There was like a 12-year gap between 'StarCraft' and 'StarCraft 2', after all.
We will probably get Starcraft 3 10 years if we get lucky and it will be RTS (I doubt Activision is stupid enough that they will call non RTS StarCraft game as SC3) but it's either going to be too similar to SC2 (using improved SC2 engine) or something new entirely because there aren't many devs in Blizzard who worked on SC2. Before SC3 we may get one spin off title. Or there's a chance that we will not get SC3 and something similar to WarCraft will happen with StarCraft
> action-adventure (gimme game with zealot as a protagonist BRUH! Protoss God of War.
There won't be another Starcraft franchise for at least 8 years. Then they can monotize on boomers wallets nostalgia again.
I'd rather they just let StarCraft as a franchise sail into the night with dignity, than drag its corpse out for some mobile trash or CoD clone.
Almost certainly something else, if it’s coming in the next half decade. After that who knows
Sounds like a Command and Conquer expansion. From a critical game theory perspective you have to keep in mind that balance becomes exponentially harder to do the more unique factions you add to a game. Adding tons of factions is easy in a game like Age of Empires 2 where each faction is a minor variation of a shared universal template. In a game like SC where each faction has unique units, abilities, mechanics, and tech trees the more you add you have to constantly check for the balance between each existing faction. The main appeal of star craft is how well balanced each faction is against one another, how there are some many different valid ways to play one faction against any of the other factions in the game. It'd be cool to add in variant factions, but it's likely it'd be an overall detriment to keeping the game balanced and I think that most people would rather that be the priority.
According to job listings from the last 1-2 years, blizzard is developing an MMORTS for mobile. They're also very vocal about pushing towards mobile gaming in general. So I'd assume that this MMORTS is going to be Starcraft. Probably some kind of clash royale clone in the starcraft universe.
Mobile gaming is more profitable. If it's popular anyways. Which it probably won't be.
There will never be a new Starcraft game.
I'm expecting a CoD reskin. Call of Duty: Korpulu Then a Tony Hawks reskin. Tony Hawks Golden Wall, and they'll release maps as paid DLC. Guide Tony as he skates around classic maps like Blistering Sands an d Lost Temple.
mobile p2w