WarCraft and the Birth of Real-time Strategy

[Valigarmander]

1UP's Retro Gaming Blog : WarCraft and the Birth of Real-time Strategy

Before 1992, the bad guys in strategy games usually waited their turn. Games like Stonkers featured real-time combat, but the units were controlled by the keyboard or joystick. It wasn't until Dune II rolled around that the modern real-time strategy game was born, and even then the genre was still in its formative stages.

It was Command & Conquer and WarCraft II: Tides of Darkness that would end up popularizing RTS's, with the latter putting a tiny studio called Blizzard on the map for the very first time. Before that, they had been an obscure studio that had dabbled a bit in console development with The Lost Vikings, Rock & Roll Racing and Blackthorne, with WarCraft: Orcs & Humans being their first stab at the genre that would make them famous. Blizzard's first RTS wasn't a true breakout hit, but it did lay a lot of the groundwork for its more successful sequel, and it introduced many of the fundamentals that remain part of Blizzard RTS's today.

Like many RTS's of its day, WarCraft's armies were basically mirrors of one another. Every unit had a counterpart on the other side, with the only differences coming in the spells. The spells on both sides were overpowered for the most part, making the mages the most powerful units in the game. Even at that point though, Blizzard seemed to have a better grasp on balance than its rivals. The ability to make whole armies invisible or to summon demons may have been too powerful, but WarCraft never suffered from the equivalent of the tank blitz, which was a Command & Conquer staple all the way through Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2.

Of course, it still suffered from the quirks that pervaded the genre in the nineties. As with most Blizzard's RTS's, it's only possible to select a few units at a time (four), but there's no way to bind groups to hotkeys like in later games. The pathfinding is awful -- select your group of four and click on the other side of the map, and the units will inevitably get lost in a corner somewhere. The enemy only attacks in tiny groups, and it's also incredibly easy to lure an opposing force out of its base and into the teeth of a waiting army. In that sense, WarCraft wasn't any different than any other RTS.

What ended up separating it from the pack was it personality. Clicking on a unit too many times prompted them to start protesting -- a Blizzard trademark. The units were large and detailed in comparison to the pixelated smudges that represented the troops in Command & Conquer, and Orcs & Humans also introduced characters like the wizard Medivh and Anduin Lothar, both of whom would be frequently referenced all the way through World of WarCraft. More importantly, Blizzard crafted a universe with WarCraft that rivaled anything you would find in a tabletop source book. In the beginning, it wasn't much different than Warhammer (much like StarCraft, which bore more than a passing resemblance to Warhammer 40K), but it eventually evolved into an interesting fantasy world in its own right. From WarCraft onward, any Blizzard game could be recognized for its truly massive manuals, which were always filled with artwork and history.



It's been several years since the last WarCraft RTS, but the franchise's influences lives on through games like StarCraft II and MMOs like World of WarCraft. WarCraft II is more fondly remembered than its predecessor, but it was the first WarCraft that taught us to expect Blizzard RTS's to be loaded with personality, have rock-solid fundamental and to spin an interesting story. Out of all the wannabes and competitors to emerge over the years, only Relic has come close to matching Blizzard in the realm of strategy. Total Annihilation, Command & Conquer and Supreme Commander have all put in their claims for their throne, but they all let their ambition get in the way of the solid strategy fundamentals and personality that are central to Blizzard's success. There's a reason that people still play StarCraft, but not Command & Conquer 3.

Fifteen years later, the real-time strategy genre still indisputably belongs to Blizzard. Dune II may have been the first modern RTS, but it was WarCraft: Orcs and Humans that would serve not only as the genre's cornerstone, but as the foundation for all of Blizzard's success to come.

Man, I need to replay Warcraft I and II.

[Sim Kid]

I seem to be the only one who remembers Dune...

[Loot]

any Blizzard game could be recognized for its truly massive manuals, which were always filled with artwork and history.

And they were AWESOME.

Loved these games as a kid. I loved conjuring scorpions as my main army in the first one. It also did very well with doing single player missions. Most of Warcraft II seemed like it could be done by two players. Nothing wrong with that.

I gotta get to playing more of III. I've never done more than beat the human campaign.

[heh]

Originally Posted by Sim Kid

I seem to be the only one who remembers Dune...

nope. cred ruined

[Cosmonautical]

Yeah, Dune II was much talked about back around its release, so I'm very familiar with its popularity.

The assertion that this was the first RTS is pretty much bull****, though.

Sim Ant preceded both Warcraft and Dune II, with its release in the previous year ('91). It was very simplistic in comparison, but the rudimentary gameplay elements were all there.

[Lurch1982]

Guys Blizzard invented RTS, hack-and-slash, and MMOs. And if they would have put out that Warcraft adventure title, they would have invented point-and-click adventures.

[Valigarmander]

I hated Sim Ant.

[Prince Toad]

Well I loved it. Except that spider animation scared the **** out of me. I was young but I expect it still would.

[Cosmonautical]

GODDAMN ANTLIONS

[Loot]

YEAH MY QUEEN IS SAFE IN THIS HUGE LABYRINTH

OH CRAP MY NEST IS FLOODING