Blizzard's Bob Colayco explains why Starcraft II took so long

by Andrew Yoon { Aug 12th 2008 at 9:30AM }

Speaking at the AMD "Cinema 2.0" event in New York City yesterday, Blizzard's Bob Colayco took some time to talk about the shrouded-in-mystery Starcraft II. One of the more interesting points of the discussion: why it took so long for Blizzard to finally announce a sequel to the multi-million selling title.

Colayco noted that the original Starcraft was built on a 2D engine, in spite of the competition having largely switched over to 3D engines. The savings in processing were applied to larger, more epic battles with dozens of units being rendered on the screen at the same time. The crowded battlefield "captured the gamer's imagination more" than the barren fields of competing 3D games at the time, and helped cement Starcraft's place in videogaming culture.

In spite of their success, the team at Blizzard wasn't going to rush into a 3D Starcraft unless it could capture the same feeling of the original. "The truth is that only recently have we had this kind of 3D power where we're able to create a real Starcraft experience in 3D. What we want to see are hundreds of vehicles and creatures clashing on the battlefield, with dynamic lighting and shadows and all of these dazzling special effects -- that's the kind of gaming experience that our players expect from us."

Gallery: Starcraft II

Tags: blizzard, starcraft, starcraft-2, starcraft-ii, starcraft2

Related From Joystiq

Blizzard says no Diablo 3 in 2010, 'who knows' when it'll be released
16 days ago
StarCraft II site updated with new screens, feature content
18 days ago
Behold StarCraft II's Zerg Brutalisk
26 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

WiiFTW @ Aug 12th 2008 9:40AM

So basically the reason was you needed to have the ability to---YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS

dark_inchworm @ Aug 12th 2008 9:50AM

Coulda been executed a tad better, but I approve of the joke that I came to make.

+1

Dale @ Aug 12th 2008 9:47AM

"What we want to see are hundreds of vehicles and creatures clashing on the battlefield, with dynamic lighting and shadows and all of these dazzling special effects -- that's the kind of gaming experience that our players expect from us."

Considering your players have only ever had super-old 2D titles and the graphically unimpressive WoW to go by, they actually do not expect that from you. If you deliver it, it'll be a pleasant surprise.

Zertoss @ Aug 12th 2008 9:54AM

Warcraft 3 was very impressive when it came out, and it was running a 3D engine. WoW was also beautiful when it first came out.

So yeah, I DO expect another game that is pleasing to the optical receptors.

Dale @ Aug 12th 2008 9:56AM

But neither game was dazzling by comparison to other titles of the times. Their graphics have always been more functional than beautiful - and when their games are as fantastic as they are, that's not a problem.

Anam @ Aug 12th 2008 10:52AM

I disagree. "Dazzling special effects" does not necessarily mean high-end graphics, it need only be effects that are well executed and please your eyes.

Blizzard has never been about realistic graphics (with the arguable exception of the Diablo series), they've been about comic-book style colorful effects. While WarCraft III's effects may not have been as realistic as other games of the time, they still dazzled with artistic brilliance.

That game looked awesome and still looks better than most of the games today, not in poligon counts and textures, but in art design and sheer spectacle.

Juno @ Aug 12th 2008 12:17PM

WoW had better graphics than any other MMO out at the time. Lineage II had an anime style with better looking characters but the worlds were barren and boring. A sunrise in WoW will full effects on was gorgeous.

Zertoss @ Aug 12th 2008 11:40AM

In 2002, there were pretty much just 2 3D RTS games, Warcraft 3 and Age of Mythology. Warcraft looked better, IMO.

WhoMe @ Aug 12th 2008 11:56AM

"The savings in processing were applied to larger, more epic battles with dozens of units being rendered on the screen at the same time."

lol @ "epic". Dozens of units, waaaaaaaaaaaaw!!

Seriously, TA was a 3D game with hundreds of units on the screen at the same time. Next everyone will think Blizzard invented MMO's with WoW.

Zertoss: you're full of sh!t.

Zertoss @ Aug 12th 2008 12:05PM

TA was a 2D game, so I say it is YOU, sir, that is full of shit.

chispito @ Aug 12th 2008 1:54PM

TA was a hybrid. The units were in 3D but the landscape was pre-rendered.

Anti-Blizzard League @ Aug 12th 2008 2:47PM

Don't look at things with tinted eyes.
Blizzard games have always, ALWAYS looked bad, graphically. They shoot for the lowest end possible, and stick with it, because they want the most profit possible.
Some of their games have decent art direction sure.
But look at WoW! The game came out in 2004, and it's character models look worse than some of the worst N64 games' character models.

Blizzard seems to work with doing the minimalist of job, because no one expects anything of them, because they're blizzard, and they don't have to innovate, change, or really do anything, because they've got about 20 million blind fans to back them up.

Noshino @ Aug 12th 2008 3:09PM

Anti-Blizzard League,

Look, Im by no means a WoW fan (I actually found it rather boring), but come the fuck on!

"Don't look at things with tinted eyes.
Blizzard games have always, ALWAYS looked bad, graphically."

Bad? Hell no, I think the actual term you were looking for was "average"

"They shoot for the lowest end possible, and stick with it, because they want the most profit possible."

Yah, they want the most profits, but they also want to please most people, something that not many companies tend to do.

"But look at WoW! The game came out in 2004, and it's character models look worse than some of the worst N64 games' character models."

Go take a look at Mario 64 and dare to state that once again.

One of the reasons I love Blizzard is the fact that his games tend to have a lot of balance (except Diablo, but then again, Im more of an RTS fan), StarCraft was one of the first games to have 3 races that were so well balanced, THAT is what made the game so fucking awesome

Anam @ Aug 12th 2008 3:23PM

Tinted eyes? You mean the fact that I love the look of Blizzard's games means that I'm instantly biased and therefore cannot speak for the quality of Blizzard's art?

If your argument is that Blizzard's games look bad because they didn't use all of the technology available, then should we take this to mean that black & white paintings suck because they didn't use all the colors available?

Fonix @ Aug 12th 2008 10:10AM

Blizzard's bread and butter has always been the lore/storyline imo. It's what got me hooked into starcraft. I was just dying to know what would happen next.

Gregg @ Aug 12th 2008 10:23AM

Starcraft had a story?

WiNG [Life in a Game] @ Aug 12th 2008 11:02AM

Prepare to have fewer hearts.

Einhanderkiller @ Aug 12th 2008 11:30AM

Yes, and a rather good one.

MatsJn @ Aug 12th 2008 11:48AM

I'd say a frikkin' good one.

Erik Stroud @ Aug 12th 2008 12:16PM

You didn't beat starcraft without using the "there is no cow level" cheat did you? There is a great story line, along with novels to go more in depth.

Gregg @ Aug 12th 2008 12:47PM

Novels? Seriously?

Like if I was stuck on a desert island with nothing but Starcraft novels, maybe I'd--no, no, I still wouldn't read them.

And c'mon guys, if you think the story in Starcraft is good, maybe you should pick up a legitimate piece of fiction sometime, like, oh, I don't know, something that isn't controlled by a mouse.

Anam @ Aug 12th 2008 12:52PM

How do you know that the Starcraft novels aren't legitimate pieces of fiction if you won't read them?

Don't get me wrong, I also don't read novels based on games, but that doesn't mean I go around insulting them or the people who do read them.

Jimiisama @ Aug 12th 2008 1:43PM

It did, but most people were concerned more with the competitive aspect.

Noshino @ Aug 12th 2008 2:58PM

uh, you don't even need the novels, some people don't pay attention to it, but StarCraft does have a well crafted story...deeper than many games that I have seen

Paviel @ Aug 12th 2008 3:20PM

Yes, Starcraft has a story. And if you knew Kerrigan's first name, you'd probably know that...

Blazur @ Aug 12th 2008 10:23AM

Let them take as long as they want. This game will be amazing and I'm overjoyed with excitement about playing it.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 12th 2008 10:26AM

Translation: A 2D Starcraft 2 would have just been a success, not a major world phenomenon so we needed to wait for 3D to become ubiquitous enough so we could make it a world phenomenon.

XDragon @ Aug 12th 2008 10:42AM

We all know that Blizzard will take what ever time they want to complete their projects. The point is, as long as the final product is worth the wait (it always has been) then I'm ok. A slight upgrade from SC wouldn't have a great impact but if they wait (which they did) for the technology to support their ambitions for SCII, SCII could be just as massive as SC was.

JM @ Aug 12th 2008 11:19AM

I'm all for the new 3D look even though original SC will always have my heart.

Truly at the end of the day I'm just excited about my return to a serious game I can pick up and put down easily. I don't have the time or interest to play an MMO everyday for hours raiding etc...

SC2 is going to be my fix for a quick 15-25min game I can fit in whenever I have time. Step aside Mario Kart my hardcore gaming roots finally have something to look forward to.

tooPrime @ Aug 12th 2008 11:27AM

Bob Colayco has his own news story?! I remember when he was just an associate editor... but yeah, the appeal of Starcraft has always been the massive battles, so doing so is a must. That said, that's why I liked Warcraft III better from a multiplayer perspective. You had limited units in Warcraft so their relation to themselves their hero and the enemy's units were important, while Starcraft seemed to be a bit more about who could click the "build unit" button faster. I'm obviously short changing it, but it seemed to me like more of a factory simulator than you know, a war simulator.

Einhanderkiller @ Aug 12th 2008 11:35AM

Colayco quit GameSpot to work as PR guy for Blizzard.

Noshino @ Aug 12th 2008 11:38AM

well, thing is, SC was more macro, while Warcraft was more micro with heavy focus on the heroes.

tooPrime @ Aug 12th 2008 12:08PM

@Einhanderkiller Yeah, I know.
@Noshino Yup, pretty much.

Hey Apples @ Aug 12th 2008 11:37AM

Ironic, because IMHO 3D has been a terrible detriment to the RTS genre. I'd take a really well polished 2D RTS over most "modern" 3D ones.

Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 12th 2008 11:54AM

"""The crowded battlefield "captured the gamer's imagination more" than the barren fields of competing 3D games at the time [...]"""

Not completely true. Total Annihilation (TA) was delivering on the same resolution 640x480 quite good frame rate. And it was 3D (not H/W accelerated though).

And if you would ask me, TA had much much more spectacular and captivating battles.

Stealth @ Aug 12th 2008 12:03PM

I was just about to point that out. I was a die-hard TA fan back in the day, and still consider it the best RTS I ever played. With its 3D units, and large unit limit (250 or 500?) There could be plenty of action on your screen, and with a computer just a few years after its released (in '97) it would be no problem to render.

*Sigh*...