Inside-Blizzard source: Diablo 3 could arrive before StarCraft 2

1. This is a rumor.

2. Dunno what to say... Yay or nay, 'cause that could mean both games are gonna arrive, well, very late.

3. We received news today from an anonymous source from inside Blizzard, confirming that development of StarCraft 2 will be largely postponed until Blizzard's recently announced, and long-awaited Diablo 3 is ready for the market.

[Starcraft 2] is still being worked on, but only by a minuscule amount of people compared to what [Blizzard] put on the Diablo 3 team.

This has yet to be confirmed officially by Blizzard, and I personally doubt they will respond. Because this information was leaked unintentionally through a casual conversation with one of our staff members, we can not reveal the name of our source publicly - so to protect this individual and his/her position within Blizzard. Nor can we say that this came directly from Blizzard.

Link.

It's on Kotaku, too, so it's getting alot of media attention, apparently.

i would rather have diablo 3 over starcraft 2 so hell yeahhhh! bring diablo quicker and delay starcraft all they want!superjim42

Same..

while im still getting SC2..i would rather have D3 first..besides we have a year full of RTS's Anyways, Dawn of war, Empire.

That's strange, from what we've seen SC2 has been pretty close to completion (just needs balancing, etc). If Diablo 3 has such a large development team assigned to it, perhaps the pictures we've been seeing are fairly close to the final (or close to final) build as well.

Hopefully neither will arrive too late, I'm hoping for a 2009 release for both of them.
Saturos3091

yeah because diablo 3 has been in developement for around 4 years so im gonna bet that starcraft 2 and diablo 3 are both pretty much done besides some tweaking. just think they dont want to realease each game to close to each other.

i would rather have diablo 3 over starcraft 2 so hell yeahhhh! bring diablo quicker and delay starcraft all they want!superjim42

this

fore me as well

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]That's strange, from what we've seen SC2 has been pretty close to completion (just needs balancing, etc). If Diablo 3 has such a large development team assigned to it, perhaps the pictures we've been seeing are fairly close to the final (or close to final) build as well.

Hopefully neither will arrive too late, I'm hoping for a 2009 release for both of them.
Blackfriend8

yeah because diablo 3 has been in developement for around 4 years so im gonna bet that starcraft 2 and diablo 3 are both pretty much done besides some tweaking. just think they dont want to realease each game to close to each other.

Makes sense in a way. If Blizzard can get D3 out the door in the first half of 09, they'll be able to tap into the huge number of WoW players that have finished RotLK and are looking for something new. PBSnipes

They arent charging a subscription fee for D3 are they?

I want Warcraft 4

Now

I want Warcraft 4

Now

C-Lee

[QUOTE="C-Lee"]

I want Warcraft 4

Now

mo0ksi

I know it wont come, but boy do i want it

I doubt it. My gues would be SC2 sometime in 2009 and D3 late 2010.Marka1700

No....

SC2 in 2009.

D3 in late 2009.

That seems likely.

Specifically since the lead designer for Diablo 3 was quoted saying that they were VERY far along when the game got announced and that they were probably more than 70% complete.

Lies!

As much as I would like to play Diablo 3, I know deep down that it's going to be a long time before it's finished. Also it sounds "fishy" that D3 would have more people working on it than SC2, especially when SC2 will sell better due to the fact of the great fanbase the previous one has.

I wasn't too happy with what direction they took Starcraft 2 anyway, they seemed to make it way to much like Warcraft in the overall style and setting. If this is true then it gives Blizzard a chance to take a step back and really REALLY give us Starcraft 2 aka a game that will last forever and back.

Having Diablo 3 come out first is fine with me.

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]I doubt it. My gues would be SC2 sometime in 2009 and D3 late 2010.horrowhip

No....

SC2 in 2009.

D3 in late 2009.

That seems likely.

Specifically since the lead designer for Diablo 3 was quoted saying that they were VERY far along when the game got announced and that they were probably more than 70% complete.

Sooner the better. Either way it looks like 09 will be PC upgrading time for me.

I wasn't too happy with what direction they took Starcraft 2 anyway, they seemed to make it way to much like Warcraft in the overall style and setting. If this is true then it gives Blizzard a chance to take a step back and really REALLY give us Starcraft 2 aka a game that will last forever and back.

Having Diablo 3 come out first is fine with me.

Gamingcucumber

???

how is it like Warcraft?

The graphics are stylized but NOT like Warcraft at all.

Just because it has bright colors and sharp, defined units doesn't mean it is like Warcraft. Same applies to Diablo 3.

That is simply the cheapest way to get the best looking 3D graphics.

In terms of design(which is what matters in Starcraft 2), the game is fundamentally Starcraft. But with upgrades and some very interesting strategic dynamics added in.

Lies!

As much as I would like to play Diablo 3, I know deep down that it's going to be a long time before it's finished. Also it sounds "fishy" that D3 would have more people working on it than SC2, especially when SC2 will sell better due to the fact of the great fanbase the previous one has.

Blommen

Diablo 3 isn't a long way off.

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 started development at just about the same time(D3 was about 5-6 months later). And Diablo 3 has less balancing issues that Starcraft 2. The lead designer was QUOTED right after the announcement saying that the game was already largely playable and very, very far along.

[QUOTE="Gamingcucumber"]

I wasn't too happy with what direction they took Starcraft 2 anyway, they seemed to make it way to much like Warcraft in the overall style and setting. If this is true then it gives Blizzard a chance to take a step back and really REALLY give us Starcraft 2 aka a game that will last forever and back.

Having Diablo 3 come out first is fine with me.

horrowhip

???

how is it like Warcraft?

The graphics are stylized but NOT like Warcraft at all.

Just because it has bright colors and sharp, defined units doesn't mean it is like Warcraft. Same applies to Diablo 3.

That is simply the cheapest way to get the best looking 3D graphics.

In terms of design(which is what matters in Starcraft 2), the game is fundamentally Starcraft. But with upgrades and some very interesting strategic dynamics added in.

Not only the graphics style but also the art style. The protoss looks nothing like the protoss in Starcraft one. Compare them yourself. The colour scheme is like taken from a Warcraft game. And the lore so far has not been anywhere near the originality and quality of the first one. Too much BS units and they are straying away from the realistic units to more over the top cool looking destructo thingys.

The only thing I can't comment on is the music, but yeah I would rather have them rethink Starcraft 2 and wait a couple of years.

[QUOTE="Blommen"]

Lies!

As much as I would like to play Diablo 3, I know deep down that it's going to be a long time before it's finished. Also it sounds "fishy" that D3 would have more people working on it than SC2, especially when SC2 will sell better due to the fact of the great fanbase the previous one has.

horrowhip

Diablo 3 isn't a long way off.

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 started development at just about the same time(D3 was about 5-6 months later). And Diablo 3 has less balancing issues that Starcraft 2. The lead designer was QUOTED right after the announcement saying that the game was already largely playable and very, very far along.

I just don't see it happening but I can still hope.

Not only the graphics style but also the art style. The protoss looks nothing like the protoss in Starcraft one. Compare them yourself. The colour scheme is like taken from a Warcraft game. And the lore so far has not been anywhere near the originality and quality of the first one. Too much BS units and they are straying away from the realistic units to more over the top cool looking destructo thingys.

The only thing I can't comment on is the music, but yeah I would rather have them rethink Starcraft 2 and wait a couple of years.

Gamingcucumber

The art-style is different because Starcraft was 2D and this game is 3D... There is some that is lost in translation.

As for lore, the only really bad units outside of lore are Thor(Terran) and the Colossus(Protoss)...

Mothership(Protoss) isn't horrible. Stalker(Protoss) fits well. Queen(Zerg) makes sense. Reaper(Terran) fits well.

And almost all of the units have their places. the ONLY things that don't fit in the gameplay sense or seem unnecessary are Thor and Colossus.

All the other units have significant strategic and gameplay value. Zerg needed a base defender and Queen is perfect for that.

Protoss needed a fast, versatile unit to answer the Reaper. Both are needed because they change the stategic layout of a map. Differences in terrain level no longer make a huge difference, and ultimately play well in terms of strategy.

Mothership is a good air unit for the Protoss. It is no longer and overpowered superunit, so that is good.

Phoenix is probably the BEST replacement unit in the game.

I think you are focusing too much on superficial elements and not looking at what matters... the gameplay.

HELL YA!!

HELL YA!!

**** all of them.

Make World of Starcraft and give me my mother****ing Warcraft 4.

Not only the graphics style but also the art style. The protoss looks nothing like the protoss in Starcraft one. Compare them yourself. The colour scheme is like taken from a Warcraft game. And the lore so far has not been anywhere near the originality and quality of the first one. Too much BS units and they are straying away from the realistic units to more over the top cool looking destructo thingys.

The only thing I can't comment on is the music, but yeah I would rather have them rethink Starcraft 2 and wait a couple of years.

Gamingcucumber

It must blow when you don't like a game that's probably gonna be the biggest game of this generation because it's not the same as it was 10 years ago.

As a Starcraft fan I think they nailed the look perfectly. It was too colorful before but they shaded it down (if you've actually been following the development).

You don't have to play it. I'll judge the game when I play it -- but Blizzard has never let me down before.