Old article is old and that was before they updated Starcraft 1.

I really haven't seriously played a Blizzard game since Warcraft 2,Starcraft 1,Diablo 1,2,
I did play and beat Diablo 3 it wasn't fun for me push I pushed myself through it and I regret even playing that since it's still Online only. (It's the only online game I've ever bothered to play that I couldn't play offline).

Fun is relative and Blizzards idea of fun is not the same as mine. Same goes with Bioware and Valve. Once upon a time yes, for years now no.

I blame catering towards a mass audience as the culprit.

I think people game today for the social aspects so multi player online is what they like. I grew up with single player games and enjoyed when multi player ones came around to a point. Warcraft 1 and 2 were great, people in the office used to fire the game up during lunch for multiplayer. I used to have weekend DOOM lan parties where you had to lug a huge machine over to a friend s house and run the coax all over to get Netware Lite running.

Still some of the most fun I have had was playing games like Warcraft, Diablo 1 and 2, and Command and Conquer single player. I do admit the game that was taken up most of my time by far is age of empries online.

Single player games are much harder to design because of the AI ballance where with multiplayer you don't have to worry about that.

I remember reading this article (or a similar one), and what exactly is said there is:

We had some dedicated folks that were passionate about the idea, dig up the Warcraft 1 assets and code. They got it working and they got it running in a window. And I played it. Warcraft: Orcs & Humans was awesome for its time. I promise you, in today's world, by today's standards, it's just not that fun anymore.

It's a pity but I generally understand why they don't want to spend their resources on a project that will not be interesting to a modern audience. Catering to a minority of old-timers is apparently not a priority.

Would be great if Blizzard at some point open sourced their old games, and made more of them freeware, but again I can understand there might be reservations about going the same route with Warcraft 1 as with Blackthorne or The Lost Vikings. (Seriously though, Blackthorne is the best Blizzard game, second only to Warcraft II 😀).

MrFlibble wrote:

I remember reading this article (or a similar one), and what exactly is said there is:

We had some dedicated folks that were passionate about the idea, dig up the Warcraft 1 assets and code. They got it working and they got it running in a window. And I played it. Warcraft: Orcs & Humans was awesome for its time. I promise you, in today's world, by today's standards, it's just not that fun anymore.

It's a pity but I generally understand why they don't want to spend their resources on a project that will not be interesting to a modern audience. Catering to a minority of old-timers is apparently not a priority.

I have to agree. The game is really primitive compared to what you can do (and expect to do) in an RTS nowadays.

Still, I would love to see Warcraft I with Warcraft II's higher resolution and updated interface (rightclick action, better group select options). This would at least make the single-player campaign as fun and playable as that of the second game.

MrFlibble wrote:

(Seriously though, Blackthorne is the best Blizzard game, second only to Warcraft II 😀).

The jury is still out on that one. 😉 There sure is a whole lot of slow pace and repetitiveness in Blackthorne (even though I personally enjoyed it quite a bit). Then again, there is a lot of that in Warcraft too. 😁

Unknown_K wrote:

Single player games are much harder to design because of the AI ballance where with multiplayer you don't have to worry about that.

That's a really odd statement. Balance issues are HUGE for multiplayer games where you have millions of players learning ins and outs of your game in order to abuse it and gain advantage. Modern games like League of Legends release balance patches every two weeks.

dr_st wrote:

Still, I would love to see Warcraft I with Warcraft II's higher resolution and updated interface (rightclick action, better group select options). This would at least make the single-player campaign as fun and playable as that of the second game.

What do you think about the Mac version graphics?

BTW, recently a guy posted in a Russian gaming forum that he had started reverse engineering the DOS version of Warcraft 1 (out of boredom, no less), and actually managed to get a Windows build running, with full menu and briefing functionality plus some basic rendering of the playing field, units and structures. He wasn't very motivated to create a complete reverse-engineered version though, for some reason. He said that a major obstacle to completing this was the slow pace at which one needs to rewrite the functions.

MrFlibble wrote:

What do you think about the Mac version graphics?

It is only slightly better. It looks like most of the graphics were just poorly upscaled to the MAC resolution and touched-up a little. The only thing really sharp is the text. 🤣 Running the DOS version in DOSBox with its basic interpolation gives similar results.

Have to agree with mostly whats been said.
Blizzard of 2016 wasn't the same as the Blizzard 10 years earlier, I can understand them not been overly interested in their back catalog.
Starcraft (Which I never really liked) and Diablo 2 (which I did) were massive games, which still have an active community a remaster of those 2 games could sell, in smallish numbers.
I doubt the other games are worth the effort as don't have the same cult following. GOG style, ship with dosbox and be done would be enough for the masses I'd think.

Even still, I'm not bothered with remasters. 99% of the time community that have a true love for the game do better jobs with unofficial patches then a commercial re-release.

Ever since Activision infected Blizzard, I steer clear of anything they put out. I would really not want to touch a Warcraft remaster that will inevitably have a season pass, dlc and microtransactions.

dr_st wrote:

Still, I would love to see Warcraft I with Warcraft II's higher resolution and updated interface (rightclick action, better group select options). This would at least make the single-player campaign as fun and playable as that of the second game.

How about WarCraft I mod on WarCraft III?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

How about WarCraft I mod on WarCraft III?

That looks pretty awesome (although the engine would take some time to adjust to, for someone who has not played Warcraft III). 😀

jheronimus wrote:

Unknown_K wrote:

Single player games are much harder to design because of the AI ballance where with multiplayer you don't have to worry about that.

That's a really odd statement. Balance issues are HUGE for multiplayer games where you have millions of players learning ins and outs of your game in order to abuse it and gain advantage. Modern games like League of Legends release balance patches every two weeks.

Ballance is easier to tweek compared to building an AI that can compete with real humans. Blizzard and other RTS game makers use real live humans to tweek settings before they sell a multiplayer game.