So, the newest news is that for years developers at Blizzard fought
for a new "Starcraft" or "Warcraft" RTS, and for years the execs shot
them down.*
Now, I was never really a big fan of either franchise. "Warcraft" was
okay, but its gameplay never gripped me, and anyway, it always played
second fiddle to the "Command & Conquer" games as far as I was
concerned. I was far less enthralled with "Starcraft"; I never got
into its lore, and the gameplay was increasingly focused on the
hard-core players who were interested in how fast you could click per
second and complex strats. Me, my RTS tactics were always more about
how _nice_ I could make my base look, with the combat playing second
fiddle to that. When I did go into battle, I just cranked out a huge
number of troops, group-looped them all and clicked on the bad guy's
base in hope that my Soviet tactics would succeed.
The TL;DR: I was never really the market for those games.
Still, Blizzard's behavior just highlights the unfortunate tendencies
of large publishers to always play it safe. "World of Warcraft" and
"Diablo" had huge markets and that meant huge pay-outs whenever a new
game (or expansion, in WOW's case) was released. The RTS games were
much riskier; they had less appeal, less recurring revenue, and the
people who _did_ like that genre could be exceptionally picky about
even the smallest changes.
From a business sense, I can totally understand why the execs shied
away from funding those games. But it's disappointing nonetheless.
Partly because -as a gamer- I like seeing new ideas rather than just
infinitely extending existing games. And, sure, sequels to "Warcraft"
or "Starcraft" wouldn't have been broad expansions of Blizzard's
horizons... but it would have been _a_ expansion. And, who knows, had
there been even moderate success with a "Warcraft 4" or "Starcraft 3",
maybe Blizzard might have actually invested in a new IP. But, no,
instead they just stuck to their extremely narrow corridor, releasing
the same two games ad infinitum.
More, it reflects another unfortunate behavior: a refusal by AAA
publishers to consider anything except the biggest AAA games which
reach the biggest audiences. These publishers will happily throw
hundreds of millions of dollars into a game because they'll know it
will immediately pay back big, but at a cost to smaller titles which
-even if they are profitable- won't have the same mammoth returns.
Maybe Blizzard could have funded "Warcraft 4" for $30 million USD. It
may not have been a huge tent pole game but that doesn't mean it
wouldn't have been good. It would have been a smaller game made for a
niche audience; there's nothing wrong with that. But too often
companies like Blizzard refused to do anything unless it was expected
to be world-shaking. And it's cost the industry, because these medium
tier games were where a lot of new ideas were pushed out to the gaming
populace at large.
Instead, we got stuck with triple-A pabulum.
It's just such shameful short-sightedness and it saddens me every time
it comes up. It reminds us that modern gaming -especially triple-A
gaming- has nothing to do with making art, or fun experiences, or
pushing the envelope. It's _all_ about the bottom line, and it's why
the games we get today are often so characterless and monotone. Any
artistry or innovation is _despite_ the publishers, not because of
them. And for a company that once was renowned for its talents in game
design, it's sad to be reminded that Blizzard is now one of the worst
purveyors of this new style.
Oh, Blizzard.
* at least, that's what it says here:
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/strategy/key-blizzard-developers-apparently-tried-for-years-to-get-a-new-starcraft-or-warcraft-rts-off-the-ground-but-execs-had-no-appetite-for-them/
Oh, Blizzard (Sept 2024 Ed)