StarCraft: Remastered was mostly a success. It seems there are still some things that were promised that haven’t been implemented yet, and hopefully those things will come in time. The idea of allowing non-Remastered users to play with Remastered users is great.
WarCraft III: Reforged was not so much of a success. Many promised things are missing, and those (like me) who did not buy Reforged have had our experience greatly affected (for me, the biggest annoyance is losing my single-player campaign progress, only being able to get it by by putting in the hours or by using cheats).
Some things to consider:
- A forced update doesn’t go down well. Giving people the option (even if it means that by not updating, they won’t have access to Battlenet) is always good, and allows people to backup any files (e.g. campaign progress files, custom map files) they may be at risk of losing.
- When remastering a game, don’t change too much. The whole menu system for WarCraft III has been changed; for StarCraft, it remained the same.
- A 2-tier pay system might go down better: a lower price for those who already own the game; a higher price for those buying the game for the first time. I didn’t mind paying a small price for StarCraft: Remastered, but I do mind paying the price of a new game for WarCraft III: Reforged. I’d rather spend that money on a new game than on a game I already own.
- It should really go without saying that a company should not promise things they can’t deliver on. StarCraft II was released one campaign at a time, which I thought was odd, but I often read that Blizzard didn’t want to release something that was less than perfect. I came to admire them for that. StarCraft: Remastered had minor bugs, which patches have helped to sort out. But WarCraft III: Reforged has simply caused a plethora of unnecessary problems.
- When remastering a game, do not force players of the original game to have to update their system. Some players are only casual players and do not keep their computers updated to the latest specifications. Forcing a remastered version onto people should not limit their enjoyment by having to change graphics settings to their lowest.
- Some people like the idea of updates to a game; others don’t. There should always be a way to allow those “purists” who like the game as it is to keep playing it as it is. (Much like point 1 above, although having multiplayer stripped from them will also cause problems.) Some communities have been set up where older versions of games can still be played online.
- Forcing players to have to be online to even play single-player is a bad move. Having to connect every 30-days may seem like no problem to most people, but there are always a few exceptions. Also, as with StarCraft II, achievements cannot be obtained when playing in offline mode, which can be very frustrating.
- Sometimes it is best to leave the old games as they are and just move onto new projects. StarCraft and WarCraft III are two of Blizzard’s best games. Yet people still enjoy playing the original WarCraft and WarCraft II (and I enjoy The Lost Vikings from time to time!). While StarCraft II did not move all players on from Brood War, and some people felt that it was too different, time could perhaps have been better spent developing StarCraft III or WarCraft IV. Instead of incorporating new ideas into older games and forcing people to accept it, how about creating a new game entirely, which has those new ideas as standard? This used to be the way of companies, but the world seems stuck on sequels and remakes rather than original things (and this is wider than just the gaming community).
In short, how about paving the way forward with creativity and originality, rather than trying to keep old successes alive by altering them?
I hope this post is taken in the constructive spirit in which it was written: it is not intended to be a rant.