Previous
How StarCraft beat Chess Interview
PC Interview by Dan Griliopoulos
Page 2
Eurogamer: So you're basically saying it looked great, had great gameplay, played great in multiplayer, a great story... were there any weaknesses?
Frank Pearce: There definitely were. The game really took off when we launched the expansion.
Bob Fitch: Brood War filled some holes.
Frank Pearce: Balancing the three races was not easy and when the game launched I wouldn't say it was ideally balanced. I don't know even how many patches we've released; one within the last six months. We have to make sure the game is viable for the e-sport community and we have to keep correcting bugs. We certainly were doing a lot of that in the first year, and the expansion addressed that too.
Eurogamer: With Brood Wars why did you stop there? Why no more expansions after that?
Frank Pearce: Warcraft III! We also splintered off another group of people who started work on another product that got shelved. These guys were then moved onto their next big project, something you may have heard of called, erm... World of Warcraft? So the development team that started working on StarCraft seeded the team that ended up working on World of Warcraft and also the team that made Warcraft III.
Eurogamer: Battle.net was one of the only multiplayer/matchmaking arenas that was fair, moderated and easy to use; has anything superceded it?
Frank Pearce: Xbox Live? Gamespy, Steam.
Eurogamer: Are your older products ever going to be on Steam?
Frank Pearce: That's a good question. We've talked about it, but we've not made any decisions beyond our own. We already offer WOW for digi-download on our own site.
Apparently, this is corsairs casting a disruption web on Terran air defences. Looks like a bleeding Mondrian to me.
Eurogamer: Yeah, and you don't need more people on that particular game, really. Going back to StarCraft, the spawn installation thing that allowed 8-player multiplayer from one copy of the game. It was an early version of viral marketing - one person selling to 7 friends. Why did that die after Total Annihilation? Why haven't more games made use of it?
Bob Fitch: I have a theory about that: people were afraid that they wouldn't make enough money. They would think they're selling one copy to eight people when they want to sell eight copies. That's just not the way we think about it. Anyway, now you can download demos right from the internet, so there's not much point to doing it right now.
Eurogamer: What was the riskiest thing you did with StarCraft?
Bob Fitch: Delay! [Laughs]
Frank Pearce: Is that a risk? We felt like the game wasn't ready so we had to hold it until we felt it was. That certainly paid off in spades.
Bob Fitch: Sure, but generally delaying can be risky for the company. It's just a risk we're willing to take every time. We can delay and the game's going to be great.
Eurogamer: Ten years ago you were a mid-rank developer. Back then, you obviously didn't expect to be where you are now. But where did you see yourselves going in the next ten years?
Bob Fitch: [Laughs] Did we look that far ahead?
Ah, yes, the difference between vanilla Goliaths and Brood Wars Goliaths; highly-effective anti-air rockets.
Frank Pearce: A lot of the stuff we did then was seat of the pants, impulsive, short-sighted stuff. Ten years ago we were a lot younger than we are today.
Bob Fitch: Ten years ago it was "let's make a great game and see what happens" rather than really trying to plan it out.
Frank Pearce: We're gamers ourselves so our focus is always on making games we wanted to play. While we were wrapping StarCraft there were a handful of guys on the team playing Ultima Online. EverQuest came along afterwards, but I don't have to spell out where that took us.
Eurogamer: N64 StarCraft didn't do badly, but not well either. People have tried strategy games on the consoles. Why did you try it? Why have you never gone back to consoles?
Bob Fitch: It was on a console. It's hard to do RTSes on a console.
Frank Pearce: StarCraft was designed with the PC and its peripherals in mind, so it was a different experience. Because it was on the N64 we didn't have the benefits of PC communities, who are critical to our experience today.
Are you excited about StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
StarCraft
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty
Zerg: Heart of the Swarm
StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-48 of 48 in total
|
That_Happy_Cat
02/07/08 @ 10:41
0
And lo he stepped from the shadows and cast off his veil of anonymity and disguise revealing himself, tall and strong with grey hair... and a bit jewish
|
|
gingerlink
02/07/08 @ 11:22
0
3 carriers? nowhere near lost my friend :)
16, all filled with interceptors? NOW you have a problem... |
|
Uncle_Fishboy
02/07/08 @ 11:44
0
Saying that a silly computer game 'beats' chess is quite clearly a load of old dog wank
|
|
drunkymonkey
02/07/08 @ 11:44
0
I quite liked the interview. It pretty damn insightful - especially about the whole nine armies thing.
|
|
GriddleOctopus
02/07/08 @ 11:45
0
tomkuryakin - sorry, I was genuinely excited to be interviewing them - I'll try and be more cynical next time. :(
|
|
GriddleOctopus
02/07/08 @ 11:48
0
Uncle_Fishboy Yeah, but it's fun hyperbole for a title - and it got your attention, didn't it?
|
|
Uncle_Fishboy
02/07/08 @ 11:53
0
Ok I've actually read the article now...so how exactly does starcraft beat chess then? If you're going to call your article 'how starcraft beat chess' - shouldn't you at least refer to this statement in the article. Methinks you should. That's liek me calling an article 'why gordon brown is a total bell end' and then writing an article about his sandwiches.
|
|
Uncle_Fishboy
02/07/08 @ 11:56
0
@ GriddleOctopus - it did get my attention but then made me feel used and dirty after I realised I'd been raped into reading it to find out how starcraft beat chess. I must go and shower and scrub my bits until they are red raw
|
|
TSYNDMonkfish
02/07/08 @ 11:58
0
Right, fair play to them great games, but did they have to nick ALL their ideas from Games Workshop? Those two (Blizzard & GW) should of teamed up years ago... We might be playing Dawn of Warcraft or something by now
|
|
GriddleOctopus
02/07/08 @ 12:04
0
TSYNDMonkfish Yeah, their stuff is mostly highly derivative - I asked the question about that, but they seemed to say that they think people /prefer/ derivative stuff as it's familiar. Personally, I'd like to see GW tie up a deal with Creative Assembly - Empire: Total Warhammer would be ace.
|
|
Rrralphster
02/07/08 @ 12:12
0
It's not an RTS, it is really an RTT ( Real Time Tactical game). No strategy involved.
|
|
Eisenstein
02/07/08 @ 12:21
0
It's not an RTS, it is really an RTT ( Real Time Tactical game). No strategy involved.
Of course strategy is involved. Do you tech up or do you expand early? Do you build up air units or do you rush? Risk an early attack or turtle for a bit? Waste crystals now because you'll gamble on being able to take the resource point in the upper corner anyway? That's all strategic decisions inside of a game session. Tactical decisions are decisions inside of encounters with the enemy, which way to take for the attack, pull back the Hydralisks or risk them in the encounter? Both types of decisions always work inside an framework, in this case the one map you're playing right now. |
|
drunkymonkey
02/07/08 @ 12:26
0
TSYNDMonkfish,
Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was originally a Warhammer RTS, made by Blizzard, before GW dumped them because they weren't impressed with what was shown. They kept the engine and most of the assets, and went onto making the first Warcraft. That should go some way to explaining the similarities (although, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of stealing everthing. Current Warcraft orcs are completely different to GW orcs, and both have sources from Lord of the Rings anyway. Warhammer ain't exactly the shining beacon of originality either.), and also cause a few smirks at GW's direction. |
|
GriddleOctopus
02/07/08 @ 13:22
0
@sergeantdisco @mikeck The editing monkey has been spanked for inserting errors - changes should be made soon.
|
|
GriddleOctopus
02/07/08 @ 13:28
0
@ Adam_T We could have asked them about that - but all that GW stuff is ripped off from other stuff anyway and the chain of plagiarism in fantasy and SF goes back to Tolkien nicking all his names from Scandiniavian and German. Their answer, parsing what they said in the article, would basically be that they think people don't want stuff done originally, they want it done really, really well. And that's what they do.
|
|
0
You'd have to be deaf and blind not to see the uncanny similarities between SC and 40K. Sure, we all take our inspiration from somewhere but the degree to which Blizzard plagarise designs is stunning. Can someone point me in the direction which shows where GW "Ripped their stuff off"? I bet it's not nearly as bad as Blizzard's plagarism.
(I love SC btw) |
|
0
@hahayou
I've no idea what you're talking about. StarCraft's UI is fantastic, and has proven extremely influential on other games in the genre. For example - Company of Heroes, which is one of the examples you cite, has exactly the same interface as StarCraft in almost every respect - in fact most of the shortcut keys are exactly the same! I've played all of the games you mention, and I wouldn't say any of them has a better user interface to StarCraft. But to each their own.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/07/08 @ 15:03
|
|
TSYNDMonkfish
02/07/08 @ 14:12
0
And speaking of CoH & Relic, be very interesting to see how DoW2 & SC2 compare.
|
|
0
"I've played all of the games you mention, and I wouldn't say any of them has a better user interface to StarCraft"
I think he is confusing User Interface with Ease of Use ;) SC2 plays 99% the same as SC1 BTW (managed to play about 10 games last week). It is going to be a killer success but don't expect a lot of ground breaking new stuff. |
|
0
Company of heroes has a) a minimap that's actually worth looking at b) that list of all your troops at the side of the screen so you can quickly find stuff c) idle infantry/idle vehicle buttons and d) doesn't fill up 15% of the screen with pointless decoration.
Plus, it's 3D, so you can actually arrange the camera so you can see both parts of your flanking attack at once. And you can play well without keyboard shortcuts. Progress, in my opinion. It's true that managing the SC interface and keeping track of everything manually is part of the game, I just don't think it's a fun or necessary part. There's enough complexity to be interesting without the "finding the dark templar in a bunch of zealots" mini-game. p.s. in case it's not clear, I still think starcraft is awesome. |
|
0
"The user interface was one of the best of its time and still hasn't been improved on, actually."
It's easy to use but it's lacking in options which could prevent certain irritations with unit pathfinding, unit grouping (only providing selected groups of max 12 units can't be excused, ever) and too much microing, someone clearly needs to play Dark Reign and TA again. :) I wouldn't say SC is the best strategy game either, there's no such thing as that, period. It's the best-selling one, the most competitive as well and it still has the best story of any RTS to date. I think the latter is about the only reason I'll play StarCraft II, it doesn't seem to try anything remarkable for the rest (it does if you think just swapping/replacing units is remarkable for a sequel). Good interview for the rest. |
|
0
@ryuken
Oh yes, Blizzard are "simply" swapping / replacing a few units. Should be easy right? Er, maybe not. It's been ten years - this is a new game, with a totally new 3D engine, physics etc. With a game as delicately balanced as StarCraft, different units effectively means a whole new game experience. That sounds pretty radical to me. With much more strategic choices to be made early-game, and with units that completely alter the way battles play out (teleporting units, burrowing units, units with jump jets to bounce over cliffs and scenery etc), this is a very different game to StarCraft. By "just" replacing the unit line-up, they've created a totally new game with totally different strategies. I'm curious as to what "remarkable" things you would have them do for StarCraft II, considering it is a sequel to one of the most popular games ever. |
|
0
@hahayou
Company of Heroes has the benefit of being released 9 years later than StarCraft, for much more powerful computers. It also has the benefit of the lessons learned from 9 years of playing StarCraft, and its UI is arguably a clear and direct decendant of StarCraft's own UI. So your comparison doesn't stack up. The developers of CoH clearly thought StarCraft was the first point of reference for designing a UI for a modern RTS game, and they are quite right. The point is, the StarCraft UI has proven to be long-lasting and influential, and RTS games continue to adhere to that UI to this day, regardless of the minor improvements that advancing technology and higher resolutions have permitted in the 10 years since StarCraft originally came out. I see a few minor refinements here and there, but they all owe a debt to StarCraft. I don't see anyone re-writing the book or coming up with a UI that is a radical departure and improvement. The fact that StarCraft still remains relevant, still a primary point of reference for anyone making an RTS game in 2008 and beyond, speaks volumes.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/07/08 @ 17:08
|
|
0
@Kiigan
He said it's never been bettered. I say CoH clearly has a better UI for the reasons I listed. Technology is a part of that, but he didn't say "no-one designing an RTS for a Pentium 2 has a better inferace," he said best interface ever. If Bob Fitch is reading I would love him to jump on and explain why he thinks SC has a better interface than the other games I mentioned. I did not say starcraft was not influential, or that CoH was not derived from it. |
|
0
"Oh yes, Blizzard are "simply" swapping / replacing a few units. Should be easy right? Er, maybe not. It's been ten years - this is a new game, with a totally new 3D engine, physics etc. With a game as delicately balanced as StarCraft, different units effectively means a whole new game experience. That sounds pretty radical to me. With much more strategic choices to be made early-game, and with units that completely alter the way battles play out (teleporting units, burrowing units, units with jump jets to bounce over cliffs and scenery etc), this is a very different game to StarCraft. By "just" replacing the unit line-up, they've created a totally new game with totally different strategies.
I'm curious as to what "remarkable" things you would have them do for StarCraft II, considering it is a sequel to one of the most popular games ever. " I didn't say that (re)making a game is easy, especially not if they're using a new engine, provide all the standard RTS features and have to balance everything again, even though only a selected few in the world would really notice those balance acts. The problem is that I haven't seen anything game changing; the 'new' unit mechanics have been done to death in multiple other RTS's, even those predating SC. And burrowing was present in StarCraft as well (in Warwind II too for that matter). The physics seem more about eyecandy rather than that they actually contribute to the gameplay and the interface changes which have been announced for SCII are so minor and of the 'duh!'-level that they should have been implemented in the original game already. Don't get me wrong, I am not asking that StarCraft becomes CoH or SupCom, it should focus on its core strengths of course and that's varied races and such, a brilliant story (of which we currently know sh*t about) and atmosphere on all levels but something extra would be nice you know. I don't see much that screams out "this is a sequel!", some of the new and altered units look cool idd and definitely seem to expand the tactics but if units are the only things you could change in an RTS sequel then we're still living in 1998. Blizzard doesn't even have an actual new race even though that Brood War bonus mission gave all the right hints for a fourth race, if the Xel'Naga are just gonna act as some kind of WarCraft III Daemon-like critters in the campaign then I'll pass because that would be extremely lame. Just remaking the old races (and not even starting completely from scratch for them) is a bit dull yes. I've already seen more big changes in the Diablo III reveal than what the StarCraft II devs have said about their game since last year. Even Diablo II and WarCraft III changed things more drastically on the gameplay level than what StarCraft II seems to be doing. It's like Blizzard is too afraid of the competitive part of their fanbase, even though the latter are in the minority. We'll see eventually, I hope they still have something big to announce about the game before it goes live. |
|
Doctor_Hellsturm
02/07/08 @ 20:05
0
@Griddleoctupus and Azazel
If all the three of us are lying awake at night thinking of Warhammer: Total War, why has it not happend yet? Creative Assembly needs to bow to GW or the other way around and please us. Mark of chaos was horrible!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/07/08 @ 21:07
|
|
CouldntResist
02/07/08 @ 20:14
0
Games, by definition, need to be judged by how enjoyable they are to play and not by originality. Most of the time these two aspects go hand in hand, as people tend to get bored of old concepts and gravitate towards the new.
However, Blizzard is one company whom i expect to take tried and tested formulae and consistently turn them into A-grade games. Is Diablo 3 revolutionary? No. Is SC2 revolutionary? No. But i'm still 95% certain that both will be highly enjoyable, and massive successes. |
|
0
I am sorry but anybody who thinks Blizzard plagarised GW with WH40k for StarCraft is a tool and has clearly not played the game. I can see Zerg and Tyrannids, but I can see that they are Sci-fi cliches, its almost as bad as looking at a fantasy game and going 'Oooohhh Orcs! Plagarism!' GW did not invent the concept, they didn't even create the artstyle. Look at the early book artcovers, they look more 'buggy' 50 sci-fi type... and then Alien came along.
Using Terrans and the Space Marines as an example is even worse. A Space Marine is basically a super soldier; tough training, metal conditioning, genetic alteration, stands over 7 feet etc. They are also monastic and have strong fantasy religious elements (like a Paladin) wear power armour and use melee weapons. A Terran Marine is a nerve stapled convict forced to fight while existing in a 'free' society. As Blizzard explained they are basically hillbilly's and trash that smoke cigars, have tatoos and blast loud rock music on their tactical radios. But yes you guys are completly right! Blizzard clearly ripped GW off! Even on the basic premise, its not as is StarCraft is pure sci-fi while WH40k is a sci-fi translation of a fantasy setting that retains many of its elements making it unique. Do I deny that Blizzard used some elements that are unique to WH40k? No, but to state that it was plagerised or a main inspiration is wrong and the people that do so have not played StarCraft. As for the UI... well the biggest competitor to SC was C&C, look which interface became more predominant. Even the CoH UI consists of mostly frills that if you look at the videos of the top players (like Nystrom) basically never use, some are great (shows paths) but it got rid of the stances from DoW! SC UI may be far from perfect but its still one of the best. Some complaints about it are ridicolous, like that it does not automate enough. WTF?! Have you played StarCraft? You can't automate a prefect psionic storm placement. I can see economic side improvments to it, like idle worker but other than larger unit selection it is fine the way it is. When I order a unit in SC to do something I know it will do it, when I do that in CoH I have no gurantee and have to babysit my infantry squad so that they wont relocate to a 'better' cover. Also its amusing calling Blizzard unoriginal or that their games are simply polished. WarCraft 2- Changed the FoW rule set that games still use to this day, basically the grey fog where you can see the terrain but not the units. Diablo- New genre StarCraft- Three different races, tons of tiny improvements (like UI) that made it play different from WC2. Diablo 2- Skill trees, that nearly every rpg game now uses. WarCraft 3- Heroes contained to a single game, strong focus on single unit micro and loot (I don't care for these elements) World of WarCraft- Basically turned the MMO on its head by making it solo friendly, having a small death penalty and making leveling possible through only doing quests. Each of these games basically set the tone for the genre. With Diablo 3 one of the features they are adding is destructable environments, had this been any other game it would have been hyped and praised to death. As for SC2, who knows the single player seems more rpg inspired than Total War inspired and the new units mechanics seem to greatly change the pacing of the game. There is a lot more possibilities with them, more than in the games in which they were previously used. Like how the jetpacks in SC are basically the same as in DoW but more versatile since you can raid and its a ranged unit, and there is elevation. Other abilities like the new Nydas Canal and the Protoss Phase Prism sound awsome with nearly infinite possibilities. Like teleporting Stalkers into the middle of an enemy group to distrupt them and its of having them being slaughtered you can have them blink out.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 05/07/08 @ 06:19
|
Comments: 1-48 of 48 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
