New Blizzard MMO - New Franchise! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Darwin

2009-05-26, 09:01 AM

It's gonna be crap, we all know it. Blizzard wrote good lore for the Warcraft universe, but they killed it with WoW. Now they're basically writing a new, less detailed universe to make sure no one whines about inconsistencies and the writers don't have trouble justifying major figures going down in the first 12 hours of the raid releases. Maybe this'll be better than WoW but I could care less. They start throwing around the words 'track record' and I start giggling like a madman, simple as that.

World of Warcraft brought entire new levels and depths to the lore. Worlds and settings have to move forward whetever we like it or not to stay alive. And yes wow lore has tons of inconsistencies but that's what comes with crafting a detailed world, we're not perfect and thus shouldn't expect others to be so.

I for one welcome a new breath of air. Blizzard has yet to disappoint me and I trust them to deliver a quality product we'll come to love and cherish.

Xuincherguixe

2009-05-26, 09:23 AM

World of Warcraft is a very detailed setting that you have no particular influence over.

Comet

2009-05-26, 09:23 AM

Hmm...
As a rule, Blizzard does not make bad games.
WoW, however, was not exciting at all for me. It took the Warcraft franchise to directions I did not like to see it taken. Motorcycles, wut? (Yeah, I havent followed WoW much recently, so I might be just missing the point. But I saw some pictures of motorcycles in WoW and that made me go :smallfrown:)

Still, we'll see whats what and whether or not this is going to be any good.
I'd still rather see some good singleplayer games from Blizzard. MMO's make me a sad panda.

Erloas

2009-05-26, 10:00 AM

I don't really know on this. I've liked most of Blizzard's games, but I've never been a huge fan of them. Something I would get and play but not something I pre-ordered or obsessed over.

Blizzard has been good at making fun games, but they haven't really made any original games. They've only made 3 settings so far, 2 of which are highly derivative from at least a few sources and one that is fairly generic. Of course thats really not all that uncommon for most companies either. I might expect something big from Blizzard, but I wouldn't expect anything really different or original from them.

Considering how bad Blizzard has been about releasing things in any short period of time from when they start giving information about it I would say this game is still a long ways off. Like 4-5 years off. I think they are going to run into the same problem that every other MMO developer has ran into. You simply can't put as much time into development of a new game as compared to a game that went through a long development and has spent years out on the market being updated. Even if you can make development time three times more productive then release time that would still mean an extra year for every 3 that a game has been out on the market. So if they are going to compete with the big MMOs out now (which is WoW, but that is something Blizzard will have to deal with) they need to match the original 3-4 year development and another 1-3 years worth of development that happened post release. And I'm not sure if even Blizzard has the money to develop a game for that long. Its not like they aren't working on Duke Nukem Forever...

I think Blizzard is going to run into the same problem as everyone else in that their new MMO is going to have to break people's long time ties with characters and people from other games. Its a hard task to convince someone to give up on characters they spent years working on in other games. There is pretty much no way they can release a new world that doesn't feel small compared to what is available in a game with 3-4 expansions, and is complete and well tested as well. They also have the hard task of making a new engine that looks good and runs good, because while not a lot of people have a big problem with how WoW looks, they are also not really going to accept a new game looking like that, but they will complain if their old computer can't run the new game as well as it does WoW.
Then they run into the big issue that most people don't have, which is that if you want to have a big game you will have to take people away from WoW, but for everyone the new game takes away from WoW Blizzard gets 1 box sale and no increase in monthly sub cost, just changing the sub from one of their games to the next.

And while Blizzard is making good money off WoW (not as amazing as a lot of people think since about 70% of the subs are from Asia where the sub rates are done differently and they pay a fraction of what the sub rates are in US/EU) that doesn't change the fact that the new game will have to pay for itself for it to be a success. So if they end up spending $100 million making this new game then the new game has to make at least $100 million back for them to be profitable, regardless of how much they are making off WoW.

As for what the game is about... I really have no guess on that. My best guess will be that it will surprise everyone, not for being unique and different, but it will surprise everyone by being entirely unremarkable. Which doesn't mean it won't drive people into a frenzy (hype is easy to come by pre-release it seems) but I doubt it will be revolutionary in any way. (Although we might get that from CCP's new World Of Darkness MMO that is in the works, though with very little information as of yet)

Crispy Dave

2009-05-29, 02:21 PM

we already know what it is this is old news right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw8gE3lnpLQ&feature=related)

AgentPaper

2009-05-29, 02:49 PM

Hmm, let's see, they have heroic fantasy, dark and gritty fantasy, and they have dark and gritty sci-fi. I'm guessing they make a heroic sci-fi type world, something like star wars (especially KotOR and episodes 1-3) in theme, which indeed won't be new, but I fully expect them to pull it off in a way nobody else really could. Going for sci-fi would also cut down on how much the new game competes with WoW.

Myatar_Panwar

2009-05-29, 02:56 PM

Looking forward to it. Blizzard does not disappoint me often.

Lord_Asmodeus

2009-05-29, 03:16 PM

I'm hopeful about this. I like Blizzard, they make good lore and good games. Really, the thing I dislike most about WoW is they had to ruin (yes, ruin) the good Warcraft lore they had going to justify letting people kill an extra raid boss. Hopefully, a new MMO will clear up that problem by having no pre-established lore to destroy.

Weimann

2009-05-29, 03:16 PM

I'll definitely look into it when more info is revealed.

No telling how long that'll be, though.

kc0bbq

2009-05-29, 04:38 PM

Blizzard has been good at making fun games, but they haven't really made any original games. They've only made 3 settings so far, 2 of which are highly derivative from at least a few sources and one that is fairly generic.
What three settings are those? Because they actually had some pretty amazing games before Warcraft: Orcs and Humans came out. Blackthorne was fantastic. Lots Vikings was really fun. Rock&Roll Racing was fantastic. Sure, that was before they settled into the company name Blizzard, but same people same same.

Optimystik

2009-05-29, 04:50 PM

Hmm...
As a rule, Blizzard does not make bad games.

Truth.

WoW, however, was not exciting at all for me. It took the Warcraft franchise to directions I did not like to see it taken. Motorcycles, wut? (Yeah, I havent followed WoW much recently, so I might be just missing the point. But I saw some pictures of motorcycles in WoW and that made me go :smallfrown:)

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I'm afraid I have to concur that you did indeed miss the point. Warcraft, like Warhammer, was intended to be an Anachronism Stew from the get-go. Guns and swords, wands and bombs. Helicopters taking on dragons, paladins with death rays... that's part of Azeroth's charm, and that's also part of what keeps it from being yet another Middle-Earth clone.

AgentPaper

2009-05-29, 04:53 PM

Warcraft is a blatant rip-off of Warhammer Fantasy, just as Starcraft is a blatant ripoff of Warhammer 40k. Diablo could be said to be a ripoff of Dungeons and Dragons. I've heard that Blizzard originally wanted to buy the rights to use the Warhammer Lore during the development of Warcraft, but when the deal didn't work out, they just went ahead the same and changed all the names. (Not sure when, or if, this happened for sure, so take that with a grain of salt :smallwink: )

Each setting has evolved into it's own complete setting, but that's what they started out as. Taking something that works and polishing it into the best it could possibly be is what blizzard does. And I love them for it. Personally I'm hoping that they take all the nice ideas from PvP centric games like Guild Wars and Warhammer Online, and use them to make a PvP heroic science ficton game of pure awesome.

Arcane Hoplite

2009-05-30, 04:34 AM

Hmmm... They might decide to make it take place in the modern world. Imagine this:
OfficeQuest

Classes: Lawyer, Doctor, Secretary, Politician
Weapons: Pen of Suing +1, Stethoscope of Doom, Propaganda Leaflet

Now that would be fun!

Oslecamo

2009-05-30, 08:20 AM

Warcraft is a blatant rip-off of Warhammer Fantasy, just as Starcraft is a blatant ripoff of Warhammer 40k.

This would be true...

If either warhammer had a single original thing on them.

But they don't. Orcs, elves, space bugs, guys on power armor, big glowing swords, psychic powers, robots, fantasy and space war are all stuff that had already been done by a lot of people before either game came out. Warhammer And Blizzard just condensed it all togheter.

Blizzard didn't ripoff warhammer in anything. They both ripped off other sources that came before them. You have no right to say that Warhammer was the first seting with orcs, elves and dwarves bashing each other to death with magic and pointy sticks.

Oh, and next time you find a noble wise orc in Warhammer or a nonfanatical power armored guy in 40K let me know.

Cubey

2009-05-30, 09:01 AM

Didn't you know? Robert Heinlein and Ridley Scott totally ripped off Wh40k! :smallsigh:

Really. Similarities between Wh40k and Starcraft are superficial. I wonder if people who bring them up even played both of these titles. I mean, both settings have space marines, bug aliens and spiritual hi-tech aliens, but just... look at 'em... especially space marines. Tell me there's a similarity and I'll laugh.

As for Warcraft and WFB, here's the funny thing. Warcraft I and II, now these were very similar to Warhammer Fantasy, and what was not, instead was a generic Tolkienesque clone. Blizzard went for in a different direction in WIII and WoW, and now suddenly people complain about their lack of originality!

As for the new franchise, I'm almost sure it'll work out. Blizzard has yet to fail me. I'll start being enthusiatic however only when we get some details on what it'll be like. Knowing the company, that'll take a few years.

Erloas

2009-05-30, 09:14 AM

As for Blizzard borrowing ideas from GW, its not just the concept, its the look as well. There are a lot of ways you can go with a lot of different races, and at least in looks Blizzard very much went with the same look that GW was using for a long time before Blizzard ever made their games. GW orcs are (or at least were) a lot of what defined orcs as orcs. If you look at Blizzards orcs they look a lot more like GW's orcs the LOTR's orc for instance. I believe GW is also credited with being the first people to make orcs green, at least the color of green that GW and Blizzard happen to be using, instead of a drab or brown color with maybe a hint of green.

The power armor in Starcraft looks a lot like the power armor in 40k, it doesn't look like the power armor used in Starship Troopers (where the bugs came from) or like power armor in something like Fallout, nor other futuristic settings. Mass Effect has futuristic armor that looks nothing like GW's power armor.

The protos and the eldar also have a lot in common. The race could have been a lot of things, but it lives a long time, its lithe and agile, its highly specialized, its heavily psionic, its elite (being fewer in numbers but more powerful individually) pretty much everything the eldar are known for. They could have easily mixed the traits up some, but they didn't.

Sure Blizzard changed their attitudes compared to GW, but they very much have the look. And in terms of Warcraft it was several games in before the nobility of the orcs really showed up.

Not that I think Blizzard sat down and actively tried to copy GW, but I would be amazed if a good portion of the designers of the game didn't know GW's products very well. I'm sure it was more of a case of them being fans of GW's work and putting that into their own work. Its just amazing they didn't make much effort to differentiate their races in any highly visual way.

Also, while all the ideas came from a lot of different places, GW was the first to put them together the way they did. And by the time Blizzard was making their games GW already had their ideas firmly established and in the market. Their ideas of the races and such were at least as well known, if not more so, by the gaming population then the original sources were.

I like Blizzard's games, but it is also fairly clear that they are all highly derivative in many ways to lots of other games that came before them. They do a very good job of making their games, but their content and gameplay designs were never original. Even if they were often done better and much more well known then those games that they were finding inspiration from.

Erts

2009-05-30, 09:19 AM

Well, when WoW became dominated by people who don't care about the lore, or the story, and who just see quests as another way to get better, thats when they stuck in motorcycles.
It still is a good game though. You don't really tire of it, just classes.
I'm going to keep a tab on this. See what people think of it in the future.

Cubey

2009-05-30, 09:29 AM

Because motorcycles are more advanced than flying machines (present as early as Warcraft II).
Oh wait.

@Erloas: As I mentioned already, originally Blizzard was copying from Games Workshop. Originally, not anymore - they are introducing original material now, and were since W III. Unoriginal elements that are left in the setting are simply remnants of these old times: you can't suddenly make orcs non-green without a reason (although lore explains that orcs were originally not green - there's surprisingly little whine about it, probably because that'd mean whiners would have to perform actual research) when they are established as green already.
That's Warcraft.

Starcraft is inspired - by Aliens, Starship Troopers and to some extent Wh40k. But it's also original. Colonial Marines look a bit like Space Marines, but they are entirely different fluff-wise. I really cannot see anyone make a connection saying these two are the same here, unless they are ignorant and don't know the fluff. Same for Protoss and Eldar - both races are psionic and advanced, but that's where the similarities end. The history is entirely different, the psychology is entirely different, hell, even their looks are entirely different!
The Zerg are pretty similar to Tyranids, but that's because it's hard to make a really original bug alien race. Tyranids are heavily inspired by Aliens and Starship Troopers as well, but I have yet to meet a Wh40k fan/boy willing to admit their favorite setting is ripping off something. They'd sooner point fingers and cry at EVERYTHING that it rips off Wh40k.

AgentPaper

2009-05-30, 10:24 AM

People seem to have read up to "blatant rip-off" in my post and then assumed I was some whiney warhammer fan. I am not. :smallannoyed: I love blizzards games, and I love their settings. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that they stole ideas far more heavily and directly from other sources than most other games/media have. It's what they do best. They take some stuff that already works, in this case warhammer lore and RTS games, and they make them into a game and polish it until it's almost perfect. Starcraft was a bit less directly derived from 40k, but how the heck can you look at a space marine and a terran marine and not think: Huh, those look kinda exactly the same. :smallconfused:

And just one more time to make sure I get it across: I love blizzard. I love GW lore. I love blizzard for what it does, which is take a good idea from someone else and do it better than they ever could. (Though they didn't do the lore better than GW did, but that's because GW does what blizzard does for lore[And I love THEM for that, too]) And yes, I am aware of the fact that Warcraft lore has evolved far, far beyond it's roots as nearly a warhammer clone. Doesn't change what it was at it's roots, though.

Icewalker

2009-05-30, 10:44 AM

As to Warcraft and Warhammer, I don't know enough about WH to really make the connections, but I can say this: a masive portion of what the two of them have done is standard fantasy convention. Non-green orcs are practically unheard of now, for example.

As to Starcraft, I really don't think they stole from WH40K, however as my friends have been arguing, they did at least take some extensive inspiration. I think that the space marines and the terran marines are very separate, the only similarity being 'marine in heavy power armor'. However, I am going to have to give a little to the other viewpoint here, with side by side pictures of a hydralisk and a ravener.

http://qtan.homestead.com/files/hydralisk.jpg
http://sylph.me.uk/40k/nids/ravener2.jpg

Personally, I would argue that the visual appearances is where the line ends for any terran-human empire and zerg-tyranid connections, other than conventions simple enough that they can't be counted as 'unoriginal' (like the horde of alien space locusts). As to the Protoss, it's only a few phrases which describe them as a whole (psionic, elite), and the visual and story differs significantly.

They definitely drew from the games as inspirations. Maybe, in a few small spots, they could be said to have stolen a look or a trait. But I think it can't truly be said that Blizzard's ideas were not mostly original.

Cubey

2009-05-30, 10:54 AM

People seem to have read up to "blatant rip-off" in my post and then assumed I was some whiney warhammer fan.

No, not really. Wh40k fanboys didn't infest this thread yet. We'll know when they appear though, betrayed by the high-pitched whines in the background that make you think of rabid fangirls. Instead of bashing Relena from Gundam Wing or screeching about that Harry Potter ship or another, they'll scream about everything being a Wh40k ripoff. Including Wh40k itself. Proud exclamations on how the setting is plausible and realistic, and definitely not run by, [sneering sounds] Rule of Cool, are optional.

Murdim

2009-05-30, 11:30 AM

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I'm afraid I have to concur that you did indeed miss the point. Warcraft, like Warhammer, was intended to be an Anachronism Stew from the get-go. Guns and swords, wands and bombs. Helicopters taking on dragons, paladins with death rays... that's part of Azeroth's charm, and that's also part of what keeps it from being yet another Middle-Earth clone.Indeed. I've always thought from the very start that rifles, motorbikes, big bad mechas, biological weapons, steam-powered warships and shiny siege engines are perfectly integrated in the Warcraft universe, since they were already there way before WoW.

Actually, I never understood why most people complained about this kind of things rather than, say, the shameless waste of many well-developped characters for the sake of in-game exploitation. That most notably includes every single raid boss since Tempest Keep, except the meany black dragon who has never been developed to begin with.
Kael'Thas was morphed from an "ends-justifies-the-means" well-intentionned ruler to a power-drunk Evil Overlord worshipping the demons who destroyed his homeland.
Illidan, once a proactive badass, became an inept freak quietly waiting for his demise.
Archimonde, who would have effortlessy destroyed the players if the whole instance weren't a fanboy's wet dream without any kind of plot-connected excuse.
Kil'Jaeden the Deceiver, mastermind of the Burning Legion, hidden but incontestable Big Bad of the whole Warcraft trilogy through his follower Gul'dan, his minions the Nathrezims, his creation the Lich King, his in-the-field counterpart Archimonde and his submissive (former) ally Illidan, have been reduced to a mere big strong incoming-Evil-in-a-Sunwell with the IQ and methods of your average Infernal.
Malygos... wasn't evil to begin with. Not even remotely villainous or antagonistic. From day to day he got an insanely idiotic reason to oppose us, thoroughly sticking to it thanks to additional plot-induced stupidity ; and from day to day he and his whole Blue Dragon flight became a bunch of sadistic, ruthless, puppy-kicking, card-carrying villains who threatens to destroy the world they're meant to want to protect at all costs. All this mess, only to feed the uncaring masses with an epic opponent to kill.
Yogg-Saron is an Old God. An invincible, eternal, Titan-killing Lovecraftian aberration. There is a reason why they were sealed, rather than destroyed with the rest of their unthinkably alien world. That's the kind of eldritch entity that you use as a distant, sealed force which can't be directly fought, but is encountered through both the remains of their lost influence, and the ever present threat of their incoming return. If you want your bacstory to be consistent, that is. A depowered chunk of Old God corpse is an appropriate encounter. Yogg-Saron. Isn't.

In my opinion, if there is a thing who implicates a lack of imagination and storytelling honesty from Blizzard, it would be that. Not the fun-looking motorbikes who, Rule of Cool and Rule of Funny aside, are perfectly in line with Warcraft's traditionally anachronic technology.

Oslecamo

2009-05-30, 11:36 AM

but how the heck can you look at a space marine and a terran marine and not think: Huh, those look kinda exactly the same. :smallconfused:

Ok, here it goes:

Space marine:
-Flag tied to the back.
-Small helmet with eyes and breahter(or pointy nose).
-Fancy melee weapons.
-Relatively small squared ranged weapon.
-Skulls, more skulls, and papers glued all over the place.
-Dresses(optional).
-Tank level protection.

Terran marine:
-No flags or skulls or papers or any fancy decorations.
-Big helmet with a transparent big glass window that allows to see face.
-No melee weapons whatsoever.
-Oversized long ranged weapon, circular.
-No dresses.
-Paper level protection.

Actually, the only similarity that they have it's that they both have big pauldrons, but hey, so does a lot of fictional soldiers.

I could do the same for the other factions. They only look similar if you look them from a very very general perspective.

As for Warcraft III, it had it's roots in LOTR, like a lot of other games out there. WH wasn't the first to put orcs vs humans.

AgentPaper

2009-05-30, 11:50 AM

Ok, here it goes:

Space marine:
-Flag tied to the back.
-Small helmet with eyes and breahter(or pointy nose).
-Fancy melee weapons.
-Relatively small squared ranged weapon.
-Skulls, more skulls, and papers glued all over the place.
-Dresses(optional).
-Tank level protection.

Terran marine:
-No flags or skulls or papers or any fancy decorations.
-Big helmet with a transparent big glass window that allows to see face.
-No melee weapons whatsoever.
-Oversized long ranged weapon, circular.
-No dresses.
-Paper level protection.

Actually, the only similarity that they have it's that they both have big pauldrons, but hey, so does a lot of fictional soldiers.

All of which are minor details that, while different, doesn't stop them both from being very, very similar.

Also, space marines do NOT have tank-level protection. They're a bit better off than the space marines, but they have nowhere near the armor of, say, a leman russ. Unless you're comparing them to modern-day armor, in which case terran marine armor is probably tougher than a modern battle tank, and a space marine is probably more armored then a modern day battleship. But compared to tanks of their time, space marines may as well be wearing paper mache compared to pretty much any vehicle.

@Murdim
You seem to be forgetting that this is a video-game, and the primary rule is fun. The lore is going to have to take some hits for that fun, but really I think you're over-blowing the whole thing. For one, players characters are heroes. As in, they are among the most powerful individuals in history. The fact that it takes 25 people of this caliber to take down the various raid bosses does them plenty of justice, I think. :smallamused:

Oslecamo

2009-05-30, 11:58 AM

All of which are minor details that, while different, doesn't stop them both from being very, very similar.

Minor details? They use completely diferent weaponry, protection, training, fighting style, recruitment methods and hobbies, and those are minor details? Then please point out the big similarities you see between them because I'm clearly not seeing them.

Murdim

2009-05-30, 12:08 PM

@Murdim
You seem to be forgetting that this is a video-game, and the primary rule is fun. The lore is going to have to take some hits for that fun, but really I think you're over-blowing the whole thing. For one, players characters are heroes. As in, they are among the most powerful individuals in history. The fact that it takes 25 people of this caliber to take down the various raid bosses does them plenty of justice, I think. :smallamused:I would agree with you about Archimonde ; after all, we're in a video game, and Rule of Cool, well... rules. CoT3 is quite silly, but clearly identified as a semi-canon event without any further implications, not something who actually blows up a part of your background.

On the other hand, I still consider that TK blew up Kael, BT blew up Illidan, Sunwell blew up Kil'Jaeden, Nexus blew up Malygos the dragons, and Ulduar blew up the entire cosmology. NOT because "player characters are overrated", but because the bosses in question are very, very badly used as characters, becoming nothing more than big tough mobs to take down and loot.

AgentPaper

2009-05-30, 12:25 PM

Minor details? They use completely different weaponry, protection, training, fighting style, recruitment methods and hobbies, and those are minor details? Then please point out the big similarities you see between them because I'm clearly not seeing them.

"...are elite human soldiers enhanced to superhuman levels through genetic therapy, surgical modifications, and hypnotic indoctrination."

Humm, I wonder who this is describing? Perhaps if I add that the soldiers also wear power armor, which is typically colored blue, but not always, use state of the art, high-caliber weapons, and are under the command of a corrupt interstellar empire that is increasingly corrupt and brainwashes it's citizens, causing much unrest and even a large-scale rebellion. Also, these humans sometimes have psychic potential, and are at war with an ancient, powerful race, who have great psychic ability and technology, but are slowly being corrupted and have some dark kin, and also at war with a race of hyper-evolved insectoid creatures that are seemingly unstoppable and gain the traits of creatures they devour.

Are you seriously telling me there's no connection here?

Murdim

2009-05-30, 12:32 PM

"...are elite human soldiers enhanced to superhuman levels through genetic therapy, surgical modifications, and hypnotic indoctrination."

Humm, I wonder who this is describing? Perhaps if I add that the soldiers also wear power armor, which is typically colored blue, but not always, use state of the art, high-caliber weapons, and are under the command of a corrupt interstellar empire that is increasingly corrupt and brainwashes it's citizens, causing much unrest and even a large-scale rebellion. Also, these humans sometimes have psychic potential, and are at war with an ancient, powerful race, who have great psychic ability and technology, but are slowly being corrupted and have some dark kin, and also at war with a race of hyper-evolved insectoid creatures that are seemingly unstoppable and gain the traits of creatures they devour.

Are you seriously telling me there's no connection here?Yeah, you're right, all that stuff is very specific to the Warhammer 40000 Space Marines of the Imperium, and totally not one of the biggest cliché about sci-fi supersoldiers.

Don't get me wrong, though, I do think Starcraft took a good part of its base inspiration from WH40k. Just don't exaggerate.

EDIT : wait, Zergs = 'nids and Protoss = Eldars is all right, but... are you comparing the Protoss Dark Templars with the Dark Eldars ? :smallsigh:

AgentPaper

2009-05-30, 12:36 PM

Yeah, you're right, all that stuff is very specific to the Warhammer 40000 Space Marines of the Imperium, and totally not one of the biggest cliché about sci-fi supersoldiers.

Don't get me wrong, though, I do think Starcraft took a good part of its base inspiration from WH40k. Just don't exaggerate.

I'm not silly enough to think that it hasn't become a standard, like green orcs has become, but it was definitely popularized by 40K and starcraft, (probably more the latter) whereas when starcraft was in production, it was more unique to 40K.

tribble

2009-05-30, 12:56 PM

Warhammer Marine
http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/post-90027-1205171981.jpg

Starcraft Marine
http://twobrothersandasister.com/wp-content/images/2007/games/starcraft2/01.jpg

go ahead, compare them side-by-side and tell me they look soooo alike with a straight face.

I was under the impression that DnD started the Green orc thingy.

Edit: Wait, are you asserting that Starcraft Marines are superhumans? I havent seen any fluff stating they have surgical modification either.

AgentPaper

2009-05-30, 01:11 PM

Cubey

2009-05-30, 02:02 PM

Starcraft marines are anything but superhuman and elite... In fact, they're mostly brainwashed criminals. They're very mortal and treated like cannon fodder. More similar to penal legions of Imperial Guard than SMs.

And the pictures above? Except for both of these guys wearing blue power armor (and being human males, although calling a Wh40k space marine human is stretching the term) and carrying weapons, they're nothing alike.

Seraph

2009-05-30, 06:13 PM

Yes, that is a good example of how they look rather similar. Thank you for reinforcing my argument. :smallamused:

the only similarity is that the primary color is blue you idiot pedant. geometry is different, proportions are different, the technological styling is different and the terran marine is smart enough to wear a ****ing helmet and use a ranged weapon worth anything.

god damn, I've been trolled and Im too ****ing tired of this type of idiot fanboysim to care.

Lord_Asmodeus

2009-05-31, 12:09 AM

the only similarity is that the primary color is blue you idiot pedant. geometry is different, proportions are different, the technological styling is different and the terran marine is smart enough to wear a ****ing helmet and use a ranged weapon worth anything.

I'd point out that outside of the models and some art, which are made to look theatrical and (a bit :smallwink:) over the top, most Space Marines DO in fact wear helmets, but something tells me you don't care.

Erloas

2009-05-31, 12:11 AM

Well I think those two marines look pretty similiar. Especially considering these are from SC2 and they are doing more to differentiate them from others then the first game and that the particular GW marine could look quite a bit different being from another chapter, or simply being from another artist. Its not like a single imagine is the end-all and be-all of GW cannon looks. GW has adapted their looks some too in the 10 years since the original starcraft was released. I also notice that even the SC2 model uses the comically big weapon that is practically a halmark of GW design.

As for green orcs, from what I've heard it was started simply by one group of players at a prominant GW club that decided to paint their orcs green (after all, you are going to have a lot more people experiementing with colors the models in a TT game compared to most other situations) and people saw it and liked it and it was adopted by everyone else and made cannon. Also from what I've read the original D&D books never mentioned a color for orcs for a long time. Maybe if someone had some pre 80s D&D books with picture of orcs or at least discriptions to see if it shows up. The fact that the look at attitude of GW's orcs are so much more prevelent in fantasy compared to how they are portrayed by Tolkien or D&D shows how much of an influence GW has had on fantasy in general.

As for WC3 and WoW having a lot different, well by that time they had already well established the brand of Warcraft. They had the opportunity to try to differentiate their brand from what else was out on the market. The setting changed and refined a lot between WC2 and WC3 and WoW.

As for the similarities of Space Marines vs Terran Marines and of Eldar and Protos and Zerg and Tyranids... Some people say visual similarities a few abilities like psykic powers are superficial and don't really prove anything. I think that would be the case if we were talking about people, but seeing as how we are talking about games, and both settings that are very visually driven, looks are much more important then culture and attitude. Sure if you get into reading the fluff and follow the games fairly closely you can see that their attitudes and cultures are different, but from just playing the games and from what most people see of the games, there are not a lot of noticable differences. Its not like the fluff makes one bit of difference when you are actually playing the games.
I mean, you can take an elf and give it dark skin and dual wielding swords and it is Drizzit no matter what background and rational someone comes up with.

Trizap

2009-05-31, 01:17 AM

Talic

2009-05-31, 01:56 AM

Oslecamo

2009-05-31, 06:31 AM

................

the starcraft guys just look like shinier, smoother, more curved versions of the
Wh40k marines.......

not helping your argument there....

An elf is a shinier, smoother more curved version of an ork.

Are you telling me that elves and orcs are the same?

Also like already pointed out by several people, in terms of gaming:

Space Marines-toughest guys around, proefecient at both ranged and close combat, charge directly into the tick of the battle. You can leave them out on the open and laugh at all but the strongest weapons. Elite expensive troops.

Terran Marines:squishiest guys around. Any SC player knows this. Useless at close combat, decent at ranged combat. You want to keep them away from the enemy as much as possible or hide them inside bunkers. And even then they literally kill themselves with stimpacks. Cheap cannon fodder.

How are those two even similar?

GolemsVoice

2009-05-31, 08:01 AM

How comes this has become a Warhammer vs War/Starcraft argument, instead of a discussion of Blizzard's new franchise?

Lord of Rapture

2009-05-31, 08:13 AM

How comes this has become a Warhammer vs War/Starcraft argument, instead of a discussion of Blizzard's new franchise?

Because on the internet, rage is more popular than joy.

Sad, but true.

Prowl

2009-05-31, 08:57 AM

Cubey

2009-05-31, 09:29 AM

Blizzard's glory days in terms of putting out fun, original games are over. The almighty dollar is their focus now, and to hell with the games actually being fun any more. Blizzard's blanding of WoW and pathetic yet longstanding attempt to integrate PvP into their game burned any desire I had left to see more of their products.

I heard the same thing being told when Diablo II was coming up. The latest Blizzard title that wasn't met with cries of them commercialising and stopping paying attention to making fun games was Warcraft II. Or maybe Diablo.

Erloas

2009-05-31, 09:37 AM

Whoever said that 40K space marines are paper-mache compared to tanks?

Not accurate.

40K Space Marines are the heaviest Armored infantry units in their game. They have a 67% chance to survive weapons that would nuke infantry of any other race, just by virtue of their armor. Able to go toe to toe with Armor units, through specialized weaponry selection. Strongest Imperium-based infantry (above Imperial Guard). When in Terminator armor, able to withstand over 80% of the hits from most tank killing weaponry, and 33% of the hits from the most powerful weaponry in the game.

Compare to Starcraft Marines.

NOT the most armored infantry in their game (that's protoss). Not able to reliably withstand abnormal amounts of punishment. Weakest unit for their side. Non-customizable, non-upgradable. Any Improvements to their side? Come from tank level armor (Goliaths, Siege tanks, etc)

In other words: Incredibly tough supersoldiers vs average joes in armor.

No, if Starcraft Marines were ripped from anywhere? The Marines in the Aliens series.

If Zerg were ripped from anywhere? The Aliens in the Aliens series.

Protoss? Aliens from Independence Day would be the closest fit I can think of.

40k Marines don't have the best armor in the game, in reality they are only slighly better then average, about 1/3 of the eldar units have the same armor as SMs and with the right abilities your average eldar is more survivable then your average SM. Necrons are the same pretty much across the board. In fact SM power armor is only slighly more protection then cover. I could give a long list of units that are as hard or harder to kill then 40k marines.

Going toe to toe with vehicles by the use of specialize weapons is also common in 40k, it is something absolutely every army in the game can do with at least a few units.

And SMs are pretty good at melee and pretty good at shooting, but they are far from the best in either without getting very special units. Your average SM will get totally wasted by almost any dedicated close combat unit in melee and they will get taken down by most dedicated shooting units in a ranged standoff.

40k marines are expensive compared to guard or cannon fodder tyranids or grunt orks, but they are pretty much the same price as most eldar, most necrons, most daemons, and of course the chaos marines and the various other marine like armies.

That of course still puts them a bit ahead of Terran Marines in terms of power, but considering that Terrans only had 2 other groups to be contrasted against, they do fall in the middle in terms of power between the more elite Protos and the much more numerous Zerg.

Of course there is a fairly distinct change between actual gameplay and fluff. But if we go by fluff then even guard come out looking super powerful in a lot of cases (at least any cases focusing on them, like all the cases people are using focusing on SMs).

The terran marines seem like a combination of the look of SMs with more of a gameplay design and background of the Imperial Guard. I guess the fact that they were prisioners in Aliens and terran marines are also that would make them similar in background, but I don't see the connection anywhere else.

The zerg don't seem much like the aliens in the alien series to me. Of course sci-fi isn't that high on my reading so I don't know a lot of other cases of where the zerg could have come from. Starship Troopers is of course the obvious one.

I don't see how the protos are anything like the aliens from Independance Day. Of course there are a lot more sources for this type of alien that the Protos could have came from.

As for why we are talking about Blizzard's other franchises compared to other settings instead of their new franchise is simple: we know absolutely nothing about their new franchise. We don't have a single piece of information other then its going to be new. There simply isn't anything to talk about. It could be anything from hobbits to beings of pure energy to sentient animals in a setting of pirates, wild west coyboys, a matrix like present, a futuristing future or a retroistic future.
So really a look back at their previous ideas and where they came from and were they went will probably give us a better idea of what they might be doing rather then just wild guessing.

I think its going to be a futuristic western between zombie pirates and humanoid mamals ala Planet of the Apes, fighting against a world dominated by cyber-punk ninjas.

Athaniar

2009-05-31, 04:37 PM

People wanting to discuss similarities between franchises, please create your own thread.

nooblade

2009-05-31, 06:27 PM

The Marine thing has been discussed to death in other threads too, and on other boards.

I'm curious about this new MMO. World of Warcraft, while in development, sounded like it could be interesting because of immersion, I just never got into it because other games (non MMOs) were still fun and I didn't want to fork over the monthly fees. Of course I know better now, it's more of a social thing than an RPG, but I'm still interested in what they figure is going to make it different.

They've got lots of funding and experience, I bet it wouldn't be a flop like some projects, or it would flop for other reasons at least.

GolemsVoice

2009-05-31, 07:24 PM

As for why we are talking about Blizzard's other franchises compared to other settings instead of their new franchise is simple: we know absolutely nothing about their new franchise. We don't have a single piece of information other then its going to be new. There simply isn't anything to talk about. It could be anything from hobbits to beings of pure energy to sentient animals in a setting of pirates, wild west coyboys, a matrix like present, a futuristing future or a retroistic future.
So really a look back at their previous ideas and where they came from and were they went will probably give us a better idea of what they might be doing rather then just wild guessing.

That is of course true, and you're right, we know literally nothing but "It will be a totally new franchise", and given Blizzard's policy when it comes to publishing news and information, that's probably all we will know for a few years, while each individual Blizzard fan or "insider" will be absolutely convinced that it will be a pirate setting. Or a realistic medieval setting, or a dark fantasy setting. Or a cyberpunk setting. Or...

But where does all that hate come from? I have, and I realize that taste is always an individual matter, yet to see a Blizzard game I didn't like, or, in my case, love. I'm pretty sure there are better games, or more original games, or games that treat a certain aspect way better, but I have never seen a firm that has Blizzard's reliability when it comes to high-quality games. And they CARE about their customers, something that is sadly no standart in the video game industry. Warcraft and even Diablo II have received patches and balance tweaks for a very long time.

Erloas

2009-05-31, 08:57 PM

But where does all that hate come from? I have, and I realize that taste is always an individual matter, yet to see a Blizzard game I didn't like, or, in my case, love. I'm pretty sure there are better games, or more original games, or games that treat a certain aspect way better, but I have never seen a firm that has Blizzard's reliability when it comes to high-quality games. And they CARE about their customers, something that is sadly no standart in the video game industry. Warcraft and even Diablo II have received patches and balance tweaks for a very long time.

Well there is a big difference between saying a company lacks originallity and saying you don't like the company or their games. As an example in another medium, Terry Pratchett openly admits that virtually all of his stories are simply stolen from other sources and re-writen to fit into his universe. And in fact, I enjoy most of the stuff even more because of it, not despite it.

I've liked most of Blizzards games, but I've never been a big fan of them. I would like to see what they are going to do with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. I don't think we are going to see anything original in either of those games though and that is fine. I also don't think this new franchise is going to be something really original either.

I would look to Blizzard for a well made and fun game, but a game that is exactly what you would expect from it and not really pushing anything new.

Moofaa

2009-06-01, 05:10 AM

I think WoW only got good quest-wise with WotLK, mainly because many quests were much more than Kill X number of Y, or retrieve B from C. Instead you got to do many more interactive things. Before that I never even read quests beyond seeing what X and Y were so I could look them up on thottbot.

In order for the new MMO to be successful it really needs to have radically different gameplay.

Talic

2009-06-01, 05:32 AM

@Erloas:

40k Marines don't have the best armor in the game, in reality they are only slighly better then average, about 1/3 of the eldar units have the same armor as SMs and with the right abilities your average eldar is more survivable then your average SM. Necrons are the same pretty much across the board. In fact SM power armor is only slighly more protection then cover. I could give a long list of units that are as hard or harder to kill then 40k marines.
Advanced HQ/Elite selections... Versus basic infantry.
This is like saying that Thrall is better than an Orc.
Way to chalk up the obvious.
However, compare a stock Space marine versus a stock eldar guardian. Fire a heavy bolter at each squad. Fire a Flamer at each squad. The only weapon that Eldar armor can turn is... IG Flashlights. Yup. And this is what you counter with. Cover? Cover is not being discussed here. The level the two individual troops are armored is.

So you're taking one argument, and trying to turn it into another. What is the definition of "Strawman", again?

Going toe to toe with vehicles by the use of specialize weapons is also common in 40k, it is something absolutely every army in the game can do with at least a few units.But not Basic Troop choices. This is often capable with infantry heavy support or elite. Again. Yes, The Emperor's Personal guard are better than a stock stormtrooper. Thank you, again, for pointing out the painfully obvious. 40k has these things called "Troop" choices. Most armies can't effectively fight armor with them. Space Marines can.

And SMs are pretty good at melee and pretty good at shooting, but they are far from the best in either without getting very special units. Your average SM will get totally wasted by almost any dedicated close combat unit in melee and they will get taken down by most dedicated shooting units in a ranged standoff.They are the single best all around shooter/meleer. Thank you.
Optimize a SM squad for melee? They'll crush almost any Melee group.
Optimize one for Ranged? Same thing. They'll crush almost any Ranged group.

I'm talking Troop vs Troop.
You're talking Troop vs. Emperor Threetoes's Personal Elite Veterans of Stabbity Doom with Portable Nuke Cannons.

See where the problem is?

40k marines are expensive compared to guard or cannon fodder tyranids or grunt orks, but they are pretty much the same price as most eldar, most necrons, most daemons, and of course the chaos marines and the various other marine like armies.Most eldar Elites. Again, not infantry versus infantry.

Every example you make is comparing one guy's army versus the Navy Seals and Green Beret of another. And you're still barely achieving parity. That should tell you something.

That of course still puts them a bit ahead of Terran Marines in terms of power, but considering that Terrans only had 2 other groups to be contrasted against, they do fall in the middle in terms of power between the more elite Protos and the much more numerous Zerg.Ah, but no. Those Terran marines are at the bottom. After all, they're much worse than Dark Templars at melee, worse than Dragoons at Ranged, inferior to Hydralisks at ranged, and inferior to Zerglings at melee. Why, they're at the very bottom of the barrel.
At least, they are, if you apply the same logic that you do to the Space Marines.

Of course there is a fairly distinct change between actual gameplay and fluff. But if we go by fluff then even guard come out looking super powerful in a lot of cases (at least any cases focusing on them, like all the cases people are using focusing on SMs).Irrelevant.

The terran marines seem like a combination of the look of SMs with more of a gameplay design and background of the Imperial Guard. I guess the fact that they were prisioners in Aliens and terran marines are also that would make them similar in background, but I don't see the connection anywhere else.Excepting for the space theme, squishy nature, approximately equal combat ability, status as normal troops, rather than genetically altered supersoldiers... No connection at all, though.

The zerg don't seem much like the aliens in the alien series to me. Of course sci-fi isn't that high on my reading so I don't know a lot of other cases of where the zerg could have come from. Starship Troopers is of course the obvious one.Aliens is the definitive story that spawned many of those, just as Lovecraftian fiction spawned it.

I don't see how the protos are anything like the aliens from Independance Day. Of course there are a lot more sources for this type of alien that the Protos could have came from.Advanced Shielding, psychic abilities... Nope... Again, no similarites at all.

Oslecamo

2009-06-01, 06:55 AM

People wanting to discuss similarities between franchises, please create your own thread.

But that's precisely the problem. There are hardly any similarities, just a bunch of people who keep insisting that any seting with humanoid guys with any kind of weapons, armor and "marine" on their name are clearly ripping off WH40K.

Or perhaps it's just Blizzard hate. There's lots of it out there. It just seems that people can't admit that Blizzard doesn't only make good balanced games but actually suports them with good fluff to boot, fluff wich they themselves created with no more copy pasting than the copy-pasting 99.9% of other people do out there. One would almost think that GW created all modern sci-fi from scratch, Starship troopers and all other earlier books be damned.

Besides, when this new MMO comes out, you can be 100% sure that there will be some group jumping out and start screaming how Blizzard's new fluff is a complete ripoff from other fluff, and they'll start throwing this starcraft=WH40K gibberish as an example, so we may as well cleanse it now.

Erloas

2009-06-01, 10:19 AM

Advanced HQ/Elite selections... Versus basic infantry.
This is like saying that Thrall is better than an Orc.
Way to chalk up the obvious.
However, compare a stock Space marine versus a stock eldar guardian. Fire a heavy bolter at each squad. Fire a Flamer at each squad. The only weapon that Eldar armor can turn is... IG Flashlights. Yup. And this is what you counter with. Cover? Cover is not being discussed here. The level the two individual troops are armored is.

...

Optimize a SM squad for melee? They'll crush almost any Melee group.
Optimize one for Ranged? Same thing. They'll crush almost any Ranged group.

I'm talking Troop vs Troop.
You're talking Troop vs. Emperor Threetoes's Personal Elite Veterans of Stabbity Doom with Portable Nuke Cannons.

See where the problem is?Most eldar Elites. Again, not infantry versus infantry.
You seem to be mixing up infantry and troops a lot. For one, Space Marines come in Elite, Troop, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support varieties, all with the same armor and stat line just different weapon choices and different methods of movement. Of course when you change their movement they are no longer infantry, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still space marines.

A unit of Dire Avengers (a troop choice) will beat marines in a shoot-out at range (mostly due to their superior range). Their armor will also turn the shots from bolters. A unit of jetbikes (also a troop choice) has the same armor as marines and the same strength weapons and will probably come out ahead in a lot of cases due to their superior movement. Rangers (troop choice) when put into their element (ie not standing out in the middle of an open area) will also win in a shootout with marines. Guardians won't, but that is a single choice, but given the range of their special weapons, they have a reasonable chance of staying out of range of the marines and shooting them the whole time (and something like a starcannon will make short work of those marines). And if you wanted to get technical then you can field Wraithguard and Nob Bikers as troop choices as well (as examples of the fact that troop choice isn't necessarily the best method to go by, since it has more to do with game balance then anything else)
Now if you just want to stick with infantry rather then troops, well then there are a lot more options.

And there are a lot of options in a lot of armies where troop choices will beat marines in ranged or close combat, no matter which the marines are designed for. Bloodletters, deamonettes, genestealers, orc boyz, some hormogaunts, (of the ones that jump to mind and aren't a marine variant) are all troop choices from some armies that will all come out ahead in melee with any troop choice melee marine unit. In shooting there are a lot of troop choices that will beat marines too, the aforementioned dire avengers, most tau troops, necron warriors, and while lasguns won't, there are a lot of troop options in the guard codex that will (seeing as how they can take a lot of heavy weapon teams via troop choices).

Another thing to keep in mind is that elite generally just means more rare then troops and a way to balance the game. It doesn't mean the super special units of the armies. Absolutely nothing like "Emperor Threetoes's Personal Elite Veterans of Stabbity Doom with Portable Nuke Cannons" that you are saying. Its not uncommon for troops in any army to be outnumbered by the elite/fast attack/heavy support units that are with them. They aren't unique choices, they aren't HQ and bodyguard units, they aren't apocalypse only units.

And as for cover, the point was that this super special power armor that stops everything like you are saying really isn't that much better protection then some ruined wall or trees. Power armor is only going to stop ~30% more bullets then some bush or broken wall is going to, and in fact, said bush/wall is going to stop a lot of weapons that power armor won't. Power armor is a little bit better protection then a few bricks.

In the context of the world in which they are in, space marines fall into the middle of the pack in terms of power. "movie marines" or "fluff marines" are a different issue, but thats nothing to go by. I'm sure any starcraft books written about the Terran Marines also have some of them being super powerful and amazingly good (I haven't even attempted to read any starcraft books, but that is the nature of any narrative that has the main characters fighting)

[/QUOTE]