Episodic campaign was considering – no word on what they decided.
Thrall is “currently” in it.
The game is planned “tentatively” for a Q4 2012 release.
Its an RTS based on the Starcraft II engine.
Its being considered for multiple platforms like the 360 and PS3, but DS has actually been started on.
It now finally has a team working on it since Starcraft is out.
Its still very early stages and the concept art looks “beautiful”.
Fake... it has to be.. because of the "consideration" in this text.
This post is probably nothing more than bs but to think they aren't developing WCIV would be naive. They are working on it like a motherfucker.
The history of Blizzard announcements doesn't quite resonate with this post however and we will probably be invaded by some medieval looking spaceboats with orcs on it all over the world when they announce it.
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
sounds like some people on here would be happy if wc4 wasn't to be made at all, but then would probably be the same ones to bitch if Blizzard decided to make warcraft4 console only... just no pleasing some people.
I was never into wc so much as I always prefered cnc but the rts gameplay was there and it's story was fantastic. Dark and grim. Bring it Blizzard.
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
Though far from an airtight confirmation, it certainly seems Blizzard is keener on the idea than it once was. Until recently the company had asserted MMO World of Warcraft was the future of the franchise - it now seems we could see a new RTS after all.
What a bullshit video.
I still believe though, that the Blizztards are already working on WC4.
As i would imagine it being one of, if not the most wanted game their fans want.
I really preferred W3 gameplay to SC2 gameplay (I liked the hero-building aspect of it). W4 would be very nice, but I somehow feel that it's more or less a similar situation as with Half-life 3.
What a bullshit video.
I still believe though, that the Blizztards are already working on WC4.
As i would imagine it being one of, if not the most wanted game their fans want.
Knowing Blizzard they could have cancelled what they had twice by now.
Not even an announcement or a beta would make me sure with them.
It could easily be a flop, but they would still have to invest heavily in the development just to make a game.
They have no need to make a proper game anymore with all the shitty f2p p2w cash flowing in. With the risks far outweighing any potential gains their suits will only have them probably turn SC2 into f2p after they've sold enough of LotV and make further content for their existing titles.
WC3 was hardly a strategy game, SC2 is superior in every single way. I'm now in the LotV beta, and they managed to improve the game greatly over vanilla. This new expac will be great for multiplayer.
Say what you like about blizz, I for one fucking loathe WoW, but sc2 is very, very solid, and it's going to get a whole lot better with LotV.
WC3 however was very boring for me, plus it gave the world the dota craze, which I can never forgive them for!
The game is symmetric, so saying that "the game is simple because XY is OP" is not really a valid argument. Both sides have access to XY, so to win, it's not enough to simply exploit XY.
There were deep strategic decisions to be made in competitive WC3 games:
-the standard tech/rush dilemma you have in starcraft and warcraft (do I rush many units, or tech up to higher-tier units?),
-the dilemma of whether to harass the enemy or kill neutrals to level your hero (this dilemma is completely missing in SC2)
-the dilemma of whether to focus on one strong hero or have 2 or even 3 slightly weaker and more expensive heroes (again, missing in SC2).
Those are the reasons why I liked the depth of W3 more than SC2. Of course, SC2 also has some things to offer (more units, faster combat...).
In WC3 deathballing was far less viable than in SC2.
But anyway, I feel the gameplay issues with SC2 were always secondary. We'll never know what could have been because they alienated their playerbase with Battle.net 0.2. After that Blizzard left the game on life support, hoping someone will buy their expansions.
The game is symmetric, so saying that "the game is simple because XY is OP" is not really a valid argument. Both sides have access to XY, so to win, it's not enough to simply exploit XY.
There were deep strategic decisions to be made in competitive WC3 games:
-the standard tech/rush dilemma you have in starcraft and warcraft (do I rush many units, or tech up to higher-tier units?),
-the dilemma of whether to harass the enemy or kill neutrals to level your hero (this dilemma is completely missing in SC2)
-the dilemma of whether to focus on one strong hero or have 2 or even 3 slightly weaker and more expensive heroes (again, missing in SC2).
Those are the reasons why I liked the depth of W3 more than SC2. Of cour
se, SC2 also has some things to offer (more units, faster combat...).
They are different games but this conversation was the result of Ampeg saying that W3 was only about overpowered heroes and nothing else which was dead wrong and he obviously hasn't played proper multiplayer.
The game is symmetric, so saying that "the game is simple because XY is OP" is not really a valid argument. Both sides have access to XY, so to win, it's not enough to simply exploit XY.
There were deep strategic decisions to be made in competitive WC3 games:
-the standard tech/rush dilemma you have in starcraft and warcraft (do I rush many units, or tech up to higher-tier units?),
-the dilemma of whether to harass the enemy or kill neutrals to level your hero (this dilemma is completely missing in SC2)
-the dilemma of whether to focus on one strong hero or have 2 or even 3 slightly weaker and more expensive heroes (again, missing in SC2).
Those are the reasons why I liked the depth of W3 more than SC2. Of course, SC2 also has some things to offer (more units, faster combat...).
SC2 is RTS at its best, imho, vastly better than wc3.
There were no heroes, but many, many more decisions to be made, loads, loads more complex macro, even more so with LotV.
In WC3 deathballing was far less viable than in SC2.
But anyway, I feel the gameplay issues with SC2 were always secondary. We'll never know what could have been because they alienated their playerbase with Battle.net 0.2. After that Blizzard left the game on life support, hoping someone will buy their expansions.
Deathballing only happens in SC2 if you allow your opponent to do it. If yous scout out him doing the deathball route - and there are many signs of that, then you could aggressively expand, whilst doing small split attacks denying him expansions, and you would have an economic victory.
Or you could do a well done timing attack, and end him there.
Or tech rush and cripple his economy.
Deathballing only happens in lowere leagues, and that's because people dare not be aggressive enough. In higher leagues the conflicts start a couple of minutes in, and never stop. No deathballing.
In WC3 deathballing was far less viable than in SC2.
But anyway, I feel the gameplay issues with SC2 were always secondary. We'll never know what could have been because they alienated their playerbase with Battle.net 0.2. After that Blizzard left the game on life support, hoping someone will buy their expansions.
Deathballing only happens in SC2 if you allow your opponent to do it. If yous scout out him doing the deathball route - and there are many signs of that, then you could aggressively expand, whilst doing small split attacks denying him expansions, and you would have an economic victory.
Or you could do a well done timing attack, and end him there.
Or tech rush and cripple his economy.
Deathballing only happens in lowere leagues, and that's because people dare not be aggressive enough. In higher leagues the conflicts start a couple of minutes in, and never stop. No deathballing.
I definitely agree that SC2 is a better working RTS than WC3 when in the hands of an expert. However I have followed SC2 "esports" for a while during WoL and only the very best would avoid using/fighting deathballs completely, it still was a very common occurence once rushes were held off.
I think in WC3 it was far easier for bad players to be aggressive - even if it meant meeting the enemy while creeping - because you could preserve units more easily and TP out with your hero.
In SC2 I've found it more likely that both people are content sitting home and building deathballs than harrass their opponents, for the fear of losing so much so quickly was greater.
Also, isn't HotS screwed by swarm hosts and boring play? I haven't been following much, but I've heard it has a very stale metagame again.
In WC3 deathballing was far less viable than in SC2.
But anyway, I feel the gameplay issues with SC2 were always secondary. We'll never know what could have been because they alienated their playerbase with Battle.net 0.2. After that Blizzard left the game on life support, hoping someone will buy their expansions.
Deathballing only happens in SC2 if you allow your opponent to do it. If yous scout out him doing the deathball route - and there are many signs of that, then you could aggressively expand, whilst doing small split attacks denying him expansions, and you would have an economic victory.
Or you could do a well done timing attack, and end him there.
Or tech rush and cripple his economy.
Deathballing only happens in lowere leagues, and that's because people dare not be aggressive enough. In higher leagues the conflicts start a couple of minutes in, and never stop. No deathballing.
I definitely agree that SC2 is a better working RTS than WC3 when in the hands of an expert. However I have followed SC2 "esports" for a while during WoL and only the very best would avoid using/fighting deathballs completely, it still was a very common occurence once rushes were held off.
I think in WC3 it was far easier for bad players to be aggressive - even if it meant meeting the enemy while creeping - because you could preserve units more easily and TP out with your hero.
In SC2 I've found it more likely that both people are content sitting home and building deathballs than harrass their opponents, for the fear of losing so much so quickly was greater.
Also, isn't HotS screwed by swarm hosts and boring play? I haven't been following much, but I've heard it has a very stale metagame again.
Hots is very balanced, but shit. And boring shit at that.
LotV made the game a lot, LOT better. It's very different. Much faster paced, much more build decisions. You hve to get expos fast, much greater focus on good macro, and at the same time the new units are micro dependent, so gameplay is all around much more fun.
One fan asked the panel if there are any plans to remaster Warcraft or Warcraft 2, the first two games in this legendary series.
Unfortunately, this isn’t happening, according to Blizzard co-founder Frank Pearce, who shot down the idea pretty quickly. “We are fortunate enough to have all of the original source code and assets to everything we’ve done in the past,” he said, as reported by Eurogamer.
“But actually, it turns out, it’s really hard to access that stuff, unlock it, and figure out how it all works. Because we’re old, we’ve forgotten.
“We had some dedicated folks that were passionate about the idea, dig up the Warcraft 1 assets and code. They got it working and they got it running in a window. And I played it,” Pearce went on.
“Warcraft: Orcs & Humans was awesome for its time. I promise you, in today’s world, by today’s standards, it’s just not that fun any more,” he added, and concluded saying he’d much rather spend the company’s resources on World of Warcraft or Overwatch content, or on a new IP, rather than “digging up those fossils.”
Mike Morhaime, the company president then jumped in to add the caveat “At this time!” to Pearce’s answer.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
