Blizzard: StarCraft II Will Re-Energize RTS Genre
Blizzard's Chris Sigarty believes that StarCraft II will spark a resurgence in RTS gaming.
In an interview last week, Blizzard's StarCraft II lead designer Chris Sigarty seemed hopeful that the upcoming PC game will breathe new life into the real-time strategy genre. Sigarty's view of the genre is that its popularity has fallen quite a bit since the days of Starcraft: Brood War. Still, he gave a few thumbs up to many titles he's seen over the past decade that have taken "cool and innovative" directions.
"But one of the things for me that has been interesting about it is that people have changed what's crucial to an RTS--now it's all about blowing everything [traditional] out of the water," he said. "People do crazy different things--sometimes to the level of getting away from the essence of what was established previously."
Blizzard's overall feeling of the direction it took with StarCraft II is that it has a solid play style, a great gaming method, and is very innovative while making sure fans don't feel alienated. "I feel pretty positive that with StarCraft II, we'll spark a resurgence in RTS gaming. As far as PC gaming goes, it's definitely still alive with World of Warcraft so we don't think it's dead yet."
StarCraft II may also be a key component in the overall health of the RTS genre--and PC gaming for that matter--for years to come in the way that Blizzard has broken the game into three chunks. As it stands now, the next installment won't see the light of day for another 18 months.
"The original [journey] was conceived with a total complete story arc so we know those big points," he said when asked about the release of part 2, Heart of the Swarm. "But the details are still being talked about and discussed now. I've said this before, but our estimate is 18 months approximately from when we launch Wings of Liberty that we would be looking at getting Heart Of The Swarm out."
But what about LAN support? Has Blizzard caved in just a little? "No," he said. "We've made the choice at this point that we're not including LAN." His reasoning is that StarCraft II stays connected, tracking everything players accomplish. Because of that, LAN is not "a necessary" feature. What do you think? Does that make sense?
- Nvidia GTX 465 Shipped to Customer by Accident?
- Google Discussing Facial Recognition Technology
- Fable III Confirmed for PC; Xbox 360 CE Detailed
- HP Making Wrist Computer with Flexible Display
- Logitech's Stand-alone Google TV Box Gets Spec'd
- Rockstar: Bad Parents Buy Our Games for Kids
- Deals for May 21: 30% off Dell & Alienware LCDs
- Google Makes its Logo a Playable PAC-MAN Game
- Nvidia Shows iPad-beating Foxconn Tegra 2 Tablet
- Should You Feel Guilty Owning an iPhone?
- Futuremark Reveals 3DMark 11; Screens & Video
- Deals for May 24: PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 Games Sale
- VIDEO: Dell Confirms M11x Getting Core i3/i5/i7
- 3D Stereo Gaming Without Expensive Shutters
- Google is Making the PAC-MAN Doodle Permanent
- HP Tablet Running Palm's WebOS Launching Q4?
- Intel Demos System Based on 48-Core Processor
- Nvidia Announces 480M Fermi GPU for Notebooks





I hate it so I dont care.
"But one of the things for me that has been interesting about it is that people have changed what's crucial to an RTS--now it's all about blowing everything [traditional] out of the water," he said. "People do crazy different things--sometimes to the level of getting away from the essence of what was established previously."
blatant hit at EA here with CnC Tiberium series, one thing i have noticed a lot with most current RTS is an increasing lack in depth to story and development of story within the gameplay
True. Modern RTS abandons traditional, somewhat slow paced but hugely in depth base building gameplay in favor of fast paced skirmish games. I'm still waiting for an RTS that rivals good old AoE II (not taking into account the Total War series, as that has TBS with RTS combat), but without luck so far. I really hope this will be it.
Yay for a cheap WH40K ripoff with nothing innovative in it whatsoever, the lack of LAN support is even more of a joke considering the market it's aiming for.
Time for some SC fanboys downvoting.
I don't understand. Can someone explain to me how this game, which is basically Starcraft with better graphics and no innovation, is going to breathe 'new life' into the RTS genre? I'd wager it'll in fact feel like a huge step back for someone like myself who is used to the highly intuitive controls introduced in Supreme Commander.
I love the way that Blizzard have imbued themselves with the title of PC gaming champions with lines like "As far as PC gaming goes, it's definitely still alive with World of Warcraft".
I also love "StarCraft II may also be a key component in the overall health of the RTS genre--and PC gaming for that matter--for years to come in the way that Blizzard has broken the game into three chunks." Sorry, where I come from, breaking one game into three is called 'profiteering'
And yeah don't even get me started on no LAN, just because Hamachi would allow pirates to play multiplayer. I can't wait until this aspect is cracked 1 week after release.
Four words: Army of rabid fanboys.
I'll stick with Total War.
Wow, a lot of people commenting here that apparently got their asses raped in the beta. Take your rage somewhere else please.
Wow, a lot of people commenting here that apparently got their asses raped in the beta. Take your rage somewhere else please.
hahahaha
T_T
As someone in the beta, I have to say I'm loving SC2. I was never into SC or Brood War, but I did occasionally make the effort to follow the proleagues whenever there was an interesting game and just marvel at what the game offers at very high levels of play.
Whenever I played, I'd get trounced and give up after a few days.
With SC2, because I'm ranked through my first five games, I'm in a division where I have around a 50/50 chance of winning. My control isn't on display, but I'm getting better, because I'm playing people around my own level and they're forcing me to change my play, to respond to theirs, knowing that they're not orders of magnitude better than me.
Whether they include LAN has become a secondary concern. For me, that kind of competition is something I thought I'd never be good enough to experience. I'm happy it's there.
I think they're offering me something new, and I'll be the first to admit that I've played a few games with friends who are also in the beta that SHOULD have been LAN games, but they worked fine over Bnet. No problems here.
Good base building RTS went the way of the dodo when consoles took over. RTS on a console, I think not. Unfortunately with Blizzard being the flag bearer I think we can't expect any good ones to come anytime soon.
I'm still waiting for an RTS that rivals good old AoE II
Couldn't agree more. I still play AOE II every weekend with my two brothers (LAN of course). Give me a game with equal depth, balance and fun and I'll play it. Until then, I'll continue to play and enjoy Age of Empires II.
Yay for a cheap WH40K ripoff with nothing innovative in it whatsoever, the lack of LAN support is even more of a joke considering the market it's aiming for.Time for some SC fanboys downvoting.
For Starcraft to be a WH40k ripoff it is required that WH40k existed before starcraft, because WH40k came after it and because starcraft is the reference to rts gaming and will still be for many years to come. Too many RTS games try to innovate so much that they forget about the core things that makes a really good rts. Starcraft II will just remind everyone that a good RTS just needs to perfect what is already done and not overdo innovation.
For Starcraft to be a WH40k ripoff it is required that WH40k existed before starcraft, because WH40k came after it
You better be trolling if not then you're a fucking moron.