My Message close
GAME JOBS
Contents
The Design of StarCraft II
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 22, 2013
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Server
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Game Play
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Game Engine
 
NetherRealm Studios
Senior Software Engineer
 
NetherRealm Studios
Lead Software Engineer
 
Monolith Productions
Lead Mission Designer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
May 22, 2013
 
Using Small Studios As Stepping Stones In Your Career [1]
 
Opinion: Xbox One Wasn't Built For You
 
How Can You Find Jobs At Blizzard if You're an Artist?
 
Let’s produce HTML5 games with a serious approach.
 
An Object Of Lust [1]
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  The Design of StarCraft II
by Chris Remo [Business/Marketing, Design, Interview]
24 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
October 26, 2009 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3
 

On a coincidental note, it's interesting that EA recently said that with Command & Conquer 4, they would be doing a lot of the online authentication processes with single-player that you guys soon after also announced -- really trying to link the single-player and multiplayer experiences. There definitely has been an outcry against both Blizzard and EA in response. Do you feel you needed to reach a certain point historically before you could just say, "Alright, internet is pervasive enough that we can just do this now"?

DB: I don't know what the thinking is at EA, but I know for us, we've seen the success of World of Warcraft. We know people have internet connections. We know a lot of them do. And every PC you bought for however many years now comes ready to go. And how common is broadband?



When we shipped the original StarCraft, you were looking at a game where a lot of people were on dial-up. Not everyone is up on dial-up. We built a game that was functionally designed to work on your PC, and if you have this piece of equipment and you know how to make it work, you can then play this other part of the game.

Now, looking at what the PC is today, that's not how the PC ships. The PC ships today with the internet. It comes with everything that you need to make that work. That is the machine we're building for.

That is the platform, so it just makes a lot of sense to us, since that is the way it's been now for many, many years. We've seen online-only games become a huge, huge success that it's something we can actually use.

We can actually leverage this now into our design process and actually do something cool with it, we hope, and have a fully integrated experience that shows you the news -- "Oh, there's the campaign right there," "Hey, my friends are on," "Hey, what are my friends doing?" You can just feel like you're all part of the experience.

Certainly, looking at what other companies have done, and looking at Xbox Live, which is just a blast to play on, you see another example there of someone who's fairly successfully integrated the whole experience in a really positive way. We hope to accomplish that as well.

From another angle, what about pessimism about the PC platform generally?

DB: Whatever. PC games have been drying for, how long now? Shouldn't it be dead by now? I mean, it's been on its sickbed for ten years. Give me a break. Obviously, it's doing fine. I think that if developers make great games, people will find them, wherever they are.

We get this every couple of years from the movie industry. They're like, "Aw, nobody's going to the movies." And I always think to myself, "Yeah, but you know what? You haven't put out anything I want to see?" And then they ship, I don't know, The Dark Knight, and they're like, "Naw, we're having a great year! Who knows why!?" Well, you made that great movie so we all came. Make great movies, and we'll come.

So, if people make great games, then they'll show up. But if people don't make great games, people will wander off. But they'll always come back if there are great games. It's hard for me to say, though, being inside Blizzard. Obviously, we're a PC company, and obviously we're very comfortable with that, and we feel we've had a certain amount of success with it.

Looking at what we do, I think it's fine. I think it's a very viable platform. I think it's a very fun platform to play on. I think there are things about the PC platform that make it superior to other platforms. It's all about what kind of games people play.

At this point, Blizzard hasn't made a non-WarCraft game since 2001. It's now spent longer just releasing WarCraft games than it did making all the other games for its three main franchises up until that point. Does that seem odd at all, especially from the perspective of someone not working on a WarCraft game?

DB: For me, I don't think it has anything to do with anything. It's just all about scheduling and resources and what happened. World of Warcraft was not something this company expected to be this successful by far. They were hoping for a couple hundred thousand subscribers. That was what had been done in the past -- "If we could equal those numbers, we'd be fine."

So, I don't think there's any sort of conscious focus on a particular franchise in that respect. The Diablo III team has been working really hard to get their stuff to a point where they could present it, and they finally did. It was last year when they announced and said, "Hey, we've got something to show."

We wish we were shipping by now as opposed to still working on the game. So, I think it's just that these games are taking longer to make than we'd like. And the World of Warcraft team is doing expansions. They've got a strong team. They've got an established toolset. These guys know what they're doing. I think it shows in every expansion. They just get better and better and better every year.

Certainly, we're hoping, as we're developing this new engine [for StarCraft II], that once we get to that point, we'll be able to maintain a higher rate of speed than we have in the past, but I think up until now it's just the way it's worked out.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3
 
Top Stories

image
Xbox One is Microsoft's biggest move for living room domination
image
Opinion: Xbox One is a desperate prayer to stop time
image
Postmortem: Roblox Mobile
image
XBLA dropped for Xbox One, all games lumped together
Comments

Rocket Man
profile image
A LOT of people DON'T have an internet connection, or at least a decent one. A lot of people are still on dial-up. It's nice of Blizzard to integrate a lot of online functionality. It's NOT nice of Blizzard to FORCE it on us. If there are people doing real damage to the PC, that's Blizzard and Infinity Ward trying to make us all dance to their tune, towards the golden DLC pay-for-extra-content land.



Thank god I'm not liking at all the battle reports. Each one that gets released looks like less strategy and more frenzied micro. Don't know about the single player, and won't know anyway if the "you MUST be in B.Net" stance doesn't change.

Simon Fraser
profile image
Well, YOU obviously have an internet connection.

It's pretty much mandatory for gaming these days. Even most console games have day one patches.



Interesting article. It would be pretty amazing if blizzard actually managed to start releasing their games faster!

Joey Sonic
profile image
I'm more curious to see how the game uses its various tools to overcome the fact that it doesn't have such an advantage now (i.e. Blizzard's track record for making games that will run on basically anything). StarCraft has more competition now and multiplayer might be the hook it needs to effectively supplant its predecessor. I personally don't favor linking multi & single-player experiences (in any way), but I know I'm the type of gamer that's simply being swept along now, along with the wave of things like X-Box Live and World of Warcraft (both of which Browder mentions himself).

Al Tenhundfeld
profile image
I agree the internet is ubiquitous enough that it's acceptable to require internet connectivity for initial activation (within a week or two). And it's acceptable to require a connection if I choose to get new content, patches, etc.



But it's not acceptable to require an internet connection just to play single-player mode.

Nick Kinsman
profile image
... Does anyone else feel like this article more or less completely avoided design topics? Look at the article regarding the design iterations of Shadow Complex and you actually learned something. This ... this ... told me nothing?

DukeJake R
profile image
Rocket Man - who would have a pc powerful enough to run this game and still be using dial up? It's like criticising blizzard for not supporting ancient video cards



looking forward to this game - I am sure the population of south korea are as well ;)

Andrew Hopper
profile image
@Nick



They are talking about macro level conceptual stuff, which is important, but yeah, it would be more interesting to see more of what goes into making SC balanced or specifics on resouce management vs. unit management and the like. He talks about what the WANT to do, but don't say anything about what they actually do =(

Bart Stewart
profile image
I would also have liked to hear more about design tradeoffs, but overall it was an interesting personal take on joining a group working on a highly anticipated sequel... even if it did make Blizzard sound rather like a cult. :)



But I too was disturbed by the oblique generalities offered up instead of directly answering the question regarding forcible linkage of the single-player and multiplayer experiences.



"Certainly, looking at what other companies have done, and looking at Xbox Live, which is just a blast to play on, you see another example there of someone who's fairly successfully integrated the whole experience in a really positive way. We hope to accomplish that as well."



It's hard to read this as anything but a Marketing-driven customer-control tactic. Citing supposed advantages of a "fully-integrated" experience fails to directly explain why someone who would happily pay to play a focused single-player game should be forced to accept an unnecessary online requirement.



"Good for Activision" doesn't imply "good for customers," no matter how it's spun.

Jonathon Walsh
profile image
"Good for Activision" doesn't imply "good for customers," no matter how it's spun.



Well said. In both this and in the case of MW the marketing spin just hand waves over the fact that there doesn't have to be a trade-off and the two can co-exist. It's perfectly reasonable to have a large integrated online component AND support for playing offline. It would also be perfectly reasonable to have matchmaking AND dedicated servers (and no it wouldn't ruin the community, no dedicated servers is what does that).

Maurício Gomes
profile image
@J R



Don't forget that you can go to a PC store, buy a powerfull PC and bring it back, but you cannot force your nearest ISP to bring cables or radio towers to near your house. Neither you can force the mountain blocking the sattelite out of the way... And so on.



I am deeply disappointed with Blizzard, I plan to if I ever get Starcraft II (even if I buy a legal copy) to wait for a crack to be released, so I can play without internet, I dislike the idea of not onwing something that I bought, if I have to be online and checked on the blizzard servers to play SP, this mean that I am getting a service, not a product, and I don't want a service. If I wanted I would be playing WoW

Vincent Gallant
profile image
I agree with about everything Hélder said. I will add that if you want to play in a place where you don't have any Internet access (while travelling for example) and you want to play, you're screwed. It removes freedom to the consumer.



Also, I think that forcing multiplayer interaction into a game can become very annoying. Most of the time, I don't care to know that someone else is playing when I play a singleplayer game. I want to delve in it's universe and be immersed, not be reminded repetitively while playing that someone else has completed a certain mission. It can be nice features if it's optional, not if it's forced.

Chris Proctor
profile image
Anyone who thinks Blizzard is in this for a quick extra buck out of its customers isn't thinking straight.



Every Blizzard game is incredible value for money, in terms of dollars per hour or any other measure you can think of. Everyone knows this is going to be a game you buy now (well, buy when Blizzard's bloody well ready ;-) ) and will still be playing in two years.

Kevin Kissell
profile image
I like a good single player RTS game. Like to turn up the level to crazy to try and beat the computer. Never got to into the multiplayer realm with live players, however the RTS games do provide the atmsophere to have wonderful multiplayer games. Never did player StarCraft, but did like Total anihalation by Cave Dog. They were the first to have real 3D RTS game. Played so much the cd wore out. I will try WarCraft II...mayb.

Paopao Saul
profile image
I think that companies like Blizzard and EA believe that they have hit critical mass with these games, like SC2 and MW2. They are betting that tons of people will buy these games despite the public outcry, so they are putting stuff like online authentication etc. in there because they can. Had SC and MW been moderate successes (maybe just 1M each) instead of genre-defining, I don't believe they would push for such drastic authentication schemes and 'enhanced integration'.



As for Blizzard basically saying that every PC nowadays comes with an internet connection, that's illogical. Having a PC with internet capabilities is not the same as having a PC AND having an internet connection. Even if that previous statement were true, it is still impractical for them to force users to connect to a remote server for authentication, after registration, just to play an SP game, or even an MP game, where your opponent is on the other side of the room.

Maurício Gomes
profile image
I agree with Saul (but the part that MW2 is from EA...)

Paopao Saul
profile image
Oh oops, I was reading Bowder's interview above and saw EA. Mixed it up with Activision (as the publisher for MW2).

John Trauger
profile image
I suspect they don't KNOW how to balance the game and have been painted into a corner by pre-release hype. Naturally, not even Blizzard can be that honest.



Without going into detail analysis, which I don't have time for, What I've read online sounds like they instuted a mishmash of "cool" new features creating a game balance nightmare. Since they announced some of the worse offenders, they can't very well pull the plug. I can see looking at editing the force structure of various sides, to try to find a reasonable gradient of inter-side playability that isn't balanced on a swordblade between "you get pwned" and "pwn everyone else."

Soyombo Enkhtor
profile image
You all know that you CAN play this game offline right? Its not mandatory. People should do a better job of informing themselves. The only bummer is lack of LAN but there is probably something in the works since e-sports can't function without LAN.

Maurício Gomes
profile image
@Soyombo



From what I saw you CAN play offline, but it will not save your profile.

Andre Gagne
profile image
Sounds a bit like they're milking the WoW crowd.

DukeJake R
profile image
I hope SC2 will be a traditional base building RTS like SC1, and they don't take the path relic did with Dawn of War. The first Dawn of War was a tradtional RTS but the second was more of a small scale tactical game with rpg overtones, similar to company of heroes. I'm surprised they got away with calling it a straight sequel.

Arjen Meijer
profile image
"Make great movies, and we'll come." my own words pointed out to myself :)



The critz on these games are crazy but they still all play them.

Soyombo Enkhtor
profile image
@Helder



You won't be able to save in the "cloud" on a remote battle.net server. You can still save your game on your local machine.

Chip Lan
profile image
http://www.mmorpgrealm.com/wow-gold-farmers-and-mandatory-blizzard-authenticator
s/


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech