Blizzard releases WarCraft 3 assets for StarCraft 2 modding

[NhazUl]

Ah, old Blizz finally started listening to their fans.

Most of the models do look better, but still have kind of plastic feeling to them. Probably because of the normal and specular maps. I do look that the nether dragon finally looks like a dragon. Giving the demon hunter team-colored tattoos like in the WC3 alpha is also nice. And is that team color on the infernal as well?

I'm waiting for more.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I'm waiting for more.

Not sure if we will be getting any more. There is a limit to how much resources they can devote for an update that is basically free.

 

[Vinz]

Somebody convert them to mdx.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Somebody convert them to mdx.

Except SC2 cannot use mdx, only m3. They are already in a format which SC2 can use so there is no need for conversion. Besides mdx lacks many of the required containers for a lossless port.

 

[Deathcom3s]

I think he means for using the update heroes inside of Wc3. In that case, just convert the meshes and use the diffuse textures. No need for the normal maps and whatnot, since they're not even supported in Wc3.

 

[Rui]

They are the same as the default limits of WC3? Both support 256*256 maps. WC3 never preformed well with larger maps anyway.

Azeroth Wars was pretty playable. I believe BFME was also larger than 256x256, playable just as well. At least for me, the pathfinding system would sooner start bugging (that thing that happens when you order 200 units to move at the same time or so) than the game would start lagging.

I was also nearly sure that although the dimensions are the same, SC2's maps were actually smaller.

Anyhow, like I've said since 2010, 256x256 is extremely limiting, as is the 8 tile restriction.

A lot of WC3 maps did not have to be as big as they were. Especially RPGs I often find "waste" a lot of space by failing to re-use. For example all the "low-level" areas become wasted space if everyone in the game is beyond needing them. If such areas were recycled and re-populated with more useful content then you will find suddenly you have tons of space.

It would be incredibly weird if, by going through some town's western exit, you ended up in a swamp or a desert where you previously had a forest.

On top of that, you'd put extra stress on generating those areas. I assume you were proposing this to be done through triggers. Well, generating terrains through triggers wasn't exactly possible in WC3, first because of that bug that happens with GetLocationZ() (was it?), then doodads were static. I don't know about SC2, but with the time it takes to get something simple done, it would be even more tedious to have to code to generate a terrain.

Closely related is the waste of processing time constantly generating those terrains. I don't know about everybody else, but my PC can barely handle SC2 as is. I doubt it'd perform well with this constant map generation.

The only benefit this could bring is random map generation, which would slightly make the processing more worth it, but it also adds extra complexity.

Anyhow, these arguments are for the RPG context. Maps such as BFME and Azeroth Wars require a larger landscape and it should be playable everywhere. These methods of recycling do not apply for these maps. This is critical, because maps like BFME and AWS have been around for years (BFME was the first map I ever played on WC3 multiplayer in 2005, so you see) and whole communities were built around them. It must be sad to realize that it's impossible to replicate these maps in SC2, even if we didn't have the no-medieval-art problem.

If you are talking about water pathing that is a completely different issue and is completely unrelated to any form of water visuals on he map. You could easily make water land walkable and land water walkable just by painting different pathing over that area (a feature World Edit lacked). SC2 has the issue that there is no separate water pathing map meaning that hacky work arounds are required. That said using boats are only one way of delivering units around the map, nothing stops you migrating to goblin zeppelins and other air units which are even better supported in SC2 than in WC3.

I think the idea of painting the pathing was awesome. Then they made air pathing rely on blockers like Wc3. Epic fail =(
Sure, sure, there's probably a good reason why they made it that way, but I'd much rather have a fully customizable pathing system than be stuck with ground and water. By that I mean something like being able to create new pathings through the Data Editor and paint the terrain with them. Then you'd go to units (or rather the movers, or whatever they're called) to assign which pathings are an obstacle to them and which ones are not.

 

[Deathcom3s]

The simple fact of the matter is, if you find that Wc3 and WE have become too simple for your needs and you are running into strange issues like that, the best course of action is to just transition over to game dev with something like Unity, UDK or UE4. By that point, you should have enough "know-how" to get started with those.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I was also nearly sure that although the dimensions are the same, SC2's maps were actually smaller.

They appear smaller due to the scale used.

It would be incredibly weird if, by going through some town's western exit, you ended up in a swamp or a desert where you previously had a forest.

But it would not be weird if from fighting bunny rabbits in the forest you suddenly fight bandits, then soldiers and finally demons as you advance levels and the story advances. Most maps still force you to fight bunny rabbits even if they deal 0 damage and die by the dozen every hit.

 

[Avex]

You do not have to? Once you log in once, it will cache the authentication. Generally I find I never need to log in to use the SC2 Editor as I use BattleNet 2.0 and SC2 enough that the cache is always valid. It might need re-authentication every 30 days or so and if you do not play any Blizzard game in that time period something is probably wrong with you.

Does not cache for me.

I use the editor very often, but every time I log into SC2 it will kick me off the Editor and vice versa. Very obnoxious.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I use the editor very often, but every time I log into SC2 it will kick me off the Editor and vice versa. Very obnoxious.

Maybe your system is infected with a virus that constantly changes the hardware installation. Similar to Windows validation it should also reset for major hardware changes.

 

[Tya]

I can't wait! I love sc2 mapping and I love wc3, so perfect!

 

[Archian]

Awesome I expect to see some cool custom maps using this new eye-candy

 

[_lycan]

They are the same as the default limits of WC3? Both support 256*256 maps. WC3 never preformed well with larger maps anyway.

The building grid is half the resolution I do admit however mostly in WC3 buildings were 2*2 anyway (which is exactly 1 tile in SC2 and WC3).

A lot of WC3 maps did not have to be as big as they were. Especially RPGs I often find "waste" a lot of space by failing to re-use. For example all the "low-level" areas become wasted space if everyone in the game is beyond needing them. If such areas were recycled and re-populated with more useful content then you will find suddenly you have tons of space.


Just like in WC3. SC2 water has awesome physical effects such as rubble floating, splashes as units move through etc however it is limited to being completely flat and in large cells. WC3 water had no physical effects associated with it at all with the only some generic effects for shorlines and units however it supported per-node resolution, slopes and as many height levels as terrain nodes.

If you are talking about water pathing that is a completely different issue and is completely unrelated to any form of water visuals on he map. You could easily make water land walkable and land water walkable just by painting different pathing over that area (a feature World Edit lacked). SC2 has the issue that there is no separate water pathing map meaning that hacky work arounds are required. That said using boats are only one way of delivering units around the map, nothing stops you migrating to goblin zeppelins and other air units which are even better supported in SC2 than in WC3.

What? yeah a lot of maps had wasted space but a lot also needed the space, like azeroth wars, dark ages of warcraft, gaias retaliation and tkok.


And ships/naga units are a need.

 

[Dr Super Good]

like azeroth wars

It did not really need the space... Being a FFA and all it was more for messing around than being taken seriously. I remember when I was Dalaran and my friend was the Demons so we allied and I let them out and we took over the rest of the map together.

gaias retaliation and tkok

Both could have optimized space more by re-using the same areas. They did not purely because they had no space. Most of the time I played TKoK over 50% of the map was empty anyway (they had more space than they could actually use).

 

[Rui]

Azeroth Wars was fun. The terrain was actually one of its main spotlights — the Legacy Reborn version had the best mimicking of wc3's world I have known —, I'd argue it's actually the only plus, as I agree the balance of the game sucked, but it was still fun to play occasionally... and it wouldn't have been as fun without that terrain. E.g. the original Azeroth Wars Strategy by Augur had mediocre terrain: Quel'thalas was a mass of trees clearly placed through square selection on mono-textured landscape. The game was far less interesting then.

Another type of map that could need its size is that destined for roleplaying. People's lack of creativity in the latter days before I stopped playing wc3 makes a good counterargument. During the old days, sometimes not all the map was used. However, it felt realistic and people felt more free with the space available.

 

[Tya]

They are the same as the default limits of WC3? Both support 256*256 maps. WC3 never preformed well with larger maps anyway.

It legitimately doesn't feel the same, though!

Cell size in wc3 is 128*128. Average unit speed is 270. A unit moves at around 2.1 cells per second.

Cell size in sc2 is 1*1. Average unit speed is 2.25. Units move at around 2.25 cells per second (such numbers!). Then you've got game speed. SC2 is played at around 1.4x real time. You can just translate this into a flat 40% modifier onto unit move speed (since we're only comparing map sizes), resulting in sc2 units moving at 3.15 cells per real second.

So a wc3 unit will take roughly 120 seconds to traverse the map horizontally. A sc2 unit will take roughly 80 seconds.

I know that unit move speeds aren't exactly the same as map size, but it does contribute a lot to maps feeling smaller in sc2. Give every unit in wc3 a move speed of 400 (this is basically the average sc2 move speed) and you'll see first hand how much smaller every map feels just by virtue of move speed.

Then there's camera distance. I can't remember what the default wc3 camera distance is, but I think it's around 700? It's a lot further back in sc2 which, again, contributes to maps feeling smaller.

These are all solvable problems, but any map that wants to "feel" as big as maps are in wc3 would have to be designed from the ground up around that feeling!

I've spent the past 2 months working on wc3 recreations. Thought I'd share my thoughts on map sizes!

 

[Dr Super Good]

Cell size in sc2 is 1*1. Average unit speed is 2.25. Units move at around 2.25 cells per second (such numbers!). Then you've got game speed. SC2 is played at around 1.4x real time. You can just translate this into a flat 40% modifier onto unit move speed (since we're only comparing map sizes), resulting in sc2 units moving at 3.15 cells per second.

WC3 was also played at faster than 1:1 speed usually (everyone used fast and not normal). Although I agree that SC2 is likely faster, WC3 still was not that much slower. In SC2 you can alter game speed to whatever you want, be it 0.2 times or 3 times or even 100 times (as fast as possible).

These are all solvable problems, but any map that wants to "feel" as big as maps are in wc3 would have to be designed from the ground up around that feeling!

True, SC2 was aimed at a fast paced RTS unlike WC3 which was more medium paced.

Two other factors making it feel smaller are the larger cliffs and the larger placement grid.

 

[NhazUl]

Okay, I've found some portrait screenies:

fdds

I think some look better (the eredar, blademaster, paladin, mountain king, archmage, tauren chieftain, shadow hunter, demon hunter, priestess, treant and definitely phoenix, I finally see that the infernal was supposed to have a jack-o-lantern face, and the voidwalker is just scary). But others (doom guard, dreadlord, fel hound) look like they've stuck their muzzles into the camera, or look plain ugly (blood mage resembles Beyonce's ugly photo, also death knight, skeleton (that's one anatomically fucked-up skull), satyr and wtf did they do to the succubi). So it's a mixed result, I'd say.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

I agree with NhazUl, some are very neat but others are just half-arsed.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I think some were completely re-made while others were based on the WC3 meshes. The more messed up ones probably were based on meshes as the WC3 meshes also were quite messed up (just no one cared as it was still early-ish 2000).

 

[N.Knight]

How feasible is taking these models from SC2 and porting them back to wc3?

Apparently some are upto it already. I saw the blademaster and the paladin from the pics on XGM but they had wc3 animations.

 

[Manoo]

Is there are any easy way to export sc2 models (I never worked with galaxy editor)?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Is there are any easy way to export sc2 models (I never worked with galaxy editor)?

In theory there is. The editor has a built in archive browser so you can easily locate assets. The problem is that although it has an option to "export" it does not actually do anything next to close the window.

I hope that they fix this when they migrate to CASC.

Next to that you can use MPQEdit to extract them from the asset mods directly.

 

[Manoo]

Could anyone upload model mpqs, I know I'm asking to much, but I really need them. And paying 40 Euros just for models doesn't seems right for me, especially when they will be free after few months. (Don't get me wrong, but I just don't have time to play starcraft 2 nor space in computer, you know SSD...).

 

[Dr Super Good]

(Don't get me wrong, but I just don't have time to play starcraft 2 nor space in computer, you know SSD...).

Not that that is at all a problem with the rise of massive SSDs...

The main problem is that one cannot download them at all at the moment. The PTR has been removed due to a lack of resources to host it with (the servers were needed for something else).

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Both could have optimized space more by re-using the same areas. They did not purely because they had no space. Most of the time I played TKoK over 50% of the map was empty anyway (they had more space than they could actually use).

I agree that it would be possible to remake Gaias Retaliation on a 256x256 map. However, this leaves almost zero expandability (inside the same map, at least).
However, this isn't the main issue for me.
The real deal-breaker is the lack of different terrain tiles. In Gaias, I used 12 "full" terrain tiles and another 20 that didn't need a lot of variation based on two multi-tiles.

This allowed me to put every possible biome I need into a single map:
Forests, cityscape tiles, multiple dungeon/building tiles, winter tiles, autumn/farmland tiles, swampland tiles.

In SC2, I would need to create a seperate map for every biome. And this heavily impacts the workflow. Plus, I feel that it destroys some immersion if everything is split up into multiple maps. I like the "all in one" feel of Gaias.

Needless to say, now that we will get medieval models in SC2, I'm interested to at least take a look into the editor again for the data editor alone. It would be cool to generate and replicate all the spells in the mighty data editor without any scripts involved at all. However, the steep learning curve and missing documentation is still a big turn-off for me.


Would be cool if someone was willing to assist me in my humble beginnings in the SC2 editor to recreate Gaias Retaliation in HD. But I can't promise I will stay for long. Really depends on how much fun I have in the editor.

The main issue I have with that idea is that even when the WC3 units get ported to SC2 by blizzard, we will still not have all the extra stuff that is needed to create a fantasy-styled RPG:
- missile and buff SFX models (Sorry, no arrows for you, archers!)
- no environmental models that fit a medieval setting (no medieval houses, wells, boxes, ships, etc. ... though at least this stuff can be imported or ported from WC3 [thanks to HQ resources in WC3 being popular, like sword & stone or B²m])
- a unit that serves as the basis for item attachments ... call be insane, but the villager model was the greatest thing blizzard ever added to WC3.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The real deal-breaker is the lack of different terrain tiles. In Gaias, I used 12 "full" terrain tiles and another 20 that didn't need a lot of variation based on two multi-tiles.

You could use decalls on the trerrain to achieve additional variation. Also unlike WC3 you can mix and match tiles to some extent so you do not need as many.

- missile and buff SFX models (Sorry, no arrows for you, archers!)

They were ported in low quality? Some are high quality I thought.

- no environmental models that fit a medieval setting (no medieval houses, wells, boxes, ships, etc. ... though at least this stuff can be imported or ported from WC3 [thanks to HQ resources in WC3 being popular, like sword & stone or B²m])

They were already ported? You seem to be missing the part that the WC3 mod contains practically everything from WC3, although only some of it was re-mastered. It can at least be used as a place holder until a improved "High Quality" version is done.

- a unit that serves as the basis for item attachments ... call be insane, but the villager model was the greatest thing blizzard ever added to WC3.

The attachment system is superior to WC3 in that you can attach attachments to attachments as well as scale them appropriately or do a whole host of other effects.

 

[Tya]

The attachment system is superior to WC3 in that you can attach attachments to attachments as well as scale them appropriately or do a whole host of other effects.

Yep, and nothing really stops you from just importing the villager model too.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I see... looks like I need to install SC2 again and take another look into this game.

But man, all the work that would be required to recreate all that content...

 

[Manoo]

Not that that is at all a problem with the rise of massive SSDs...

The main problem is that one cannot download them at all at the moment. The PTR has been removed due to a lack of resources to host it with (the servers were needed for something else).

So as I understand, sc2 ptr is turn-ed off?

 

[Dr Super Good]

So as I understand, sc2 ptr is turn-ed off?

Until further notice. That said they will probably release them next month or so to the live server.

 

[knight26]

I can't wait for people to recreate these mods for sc2, all of them. Especially the custom made campaigns, which is not difficult to implement as far as I understand, basically there is a recreation campaign of Startcraft 1, into the Starcraft 2. Sc2 Mass Recall I just downloaded it, and installed it. Works like a charm!

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I can't wait for people to recreate these mods for sc2, all of them.

I highly doubt this will ever happen. The SC2 userbase is declining at a rapid rate. Arcade games remain in the lobby for hours, the client is just way too big for anyone interested in the f2p aspect and the editor is not accessable enough for the casual mapper.

After one week of playtesting Blizzard Arcade and playing a couple of maps there, I came to the conclusion that it sucks giant balls. I don't know what Blizzard was thinking. Making arcade f2p was the right move, but way too late to revive the mapping scene.

The only saving grace could be if LotV introduces new elements to the core gameplay that attracts new players (and casuals aswell) and there is a radical change to the Arcade. Then the mapping scene could profit from the newly fired popularity of SC2, probably reviving it long enough for good projects to generate a sustainable userbase.
But I don't really believe in that. Blizzard seems hell-bent with their current implementation of Arcade and will not change it.

 

[knight26]

The only saving grace could be if LotV introduces new elements to the core gameplay that attracts new players (and casuals aswell) and there is a radical change to the Arcade. Then the mapping scene could profit from the newly fired popularity of SC2, probably reviving it long enough for good projects to generate a sustainable userbase.
But I don't really believe in that. Blizzard seems hell-bent with their current implementation of Arcade and will not change it.

Yet they DID make us this offer. Which leaves to believe that there's plenty more changes to come, heck, why not changes to the editor itself?.
Let's be more optimistic and look forward to what they're about to offer

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Yet they DID make us this offer. Which leaves to believe that there's plenty more changes to come, heck, why not changes to the editor itself?.
Let's be more optimistic and look forward to what they're about to offer

With the rising competition of MOBA games and the overall declining playerbase in PC-gaming in general, I really doubt there will be a sudden explosion of popularity, unless priorities shift radically from e-sports to casual gaming.

 

[Dr Super Good]

the client is just way too big

I highly doubt that seeing how people stream Gigabytes per day of video content.

After one week of playtesting Blizzard Arcade and playing a couple of maps there, I came to the conclusion that it sucks giant balls. I don't know what Blizzard was thinking. Making arcade f2p was the right move, but way too late to revive the mapping scene.

It is mostly because there are no dedicated mappers anymore. Kids these days only want CoD and zombie apocalypse games.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I highly doubt that seeing how people stream Gigabytes per day of video content.


It is mostly because there are no dedicated mappers anymore. Kids these days only want CoD and zombie apocalypse games.

Maybe. But either way, I think the SC2 custom map community is dead and no ambitious project will ever revive it without some drastic marketing. Even in WC3 it is easier to fill a custom game. I wish I was joking. I sat in the Gaias lobby for like 10 minutes yesterday evening until it was full. Compared to that, I spent 30 minutes in multiple top-score RPGs (I think one of it was SC:Universe) before starting the games. Alone.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I sat in the Gaias lobby for like 10 minutes yesterday evening until it was full.

Yet I sat the other day in a SWAT Aftermath game for 3 hours and it did not fill. Obviously I did something else while waiting as I knew it would never start.

Compared to that, I spent 30 minutes in multiple top-score RPGs (I think one of it was SC:Universe) before starting the games. Alone.

SCU is ancient history since the developers vanished into oblivion. Not only were they trying to blackmail Blizzard into adding impossible features to SC2, but they also developed a clunky gameplay model that made most JRPGs look like you could progress fast (basically it was near impossible to progress). The developers probably do not care seeing how they got to run off with all that crowd funding money and buy new houses and things.

Filling games is not really a problem in SC2. A game like Special Forces Elite 5 fills in ~1-2 minutes. The problem is there are no real quality custom maps in SC2 at the moment as no one bothers to make any.

 

[Noya]

With the rising competition of MOBA games and the overall declining playerbase in PC-gaming in general, I really doubt there will be a sudden explosion of popularity, unless priorities shift radically from e-sports to casual gaming.

According to whom?

Gabe Newel's states that Steam has seen an increase of 50 percent year-over-year.
Nvidia keeps selling more PC Gaming stuff every year

I was under the impression that PC gaming is actually growing, maybe I have been looking at the wrong sources

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I'm not talking about the obvious 5 "go to" maps in SC2. I'm talking about the lobbys in general. It feels like the user base consists of players in the low-hundred at peak times. It's impossible to fill non-standard games.

According to whom?

You don't need to quote someone to claim that PC-gaming is not as big as it was 10 years ago. Almost all games get released for consoles and hardly ever get ported to PC. Even a blockbuster game like GTA V, took over a year to be released on PCs. And while the PC version of Dragon Age back in 2009 was still better than the console version, the console version of Dragon Age: Inquisition 5 years later was hands down better than the crappy PC port. The amount of PC releases every year get fewer and fewer and mostly boil down to indie games and low budget productions. Blizzard, Riot and Valve are almost the last bastions of triple-A PC releases.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I'm not talking about the obvious 5 "go to" maps in SC2. I'm talking about the lobbys in general. It feels like the user base consists of players in the low-hundred at peak times. It's impossible to fill non-standard games.

If you have a new map that is not old (was not yesterdays fad) and has a reasonably polished description it is not that hard to fill. I often see 8 player lobbies for entirely new maps fill in about 5-7 minutes odd.

Keep in mind the EU is a ghost town, all UK players use US servers and the rest of the EU does not play SC2 much. US also is a ghost town during EU peek times, it only is really active at US peek times for logical reasons.

The actual problem with PC gamming is the sort of games played and where. A large percentage of NVidia's high end products (gamming quality) are sold for commercial purposes to companies as they are the real users of GPU power (Titan series is a total flop for gammers as its main selling point, full speed double float computation, is only used by professional software).

Dedicated PC players generally play highly competitive games like MBOAs, and FPS. Most PC gammers play crappy games like on facebook or simple games like minecraft. PC gamers in developing countries play old games as that is all their systems can handle. A lot of modern kids don't bother with PC and rather play games on smartphones and consoles like the XBO and PS4.

There is a lot of money in PC gamming still, but not for silly or unique fun games. It is basically AAA or barely pay rent next month. Thus why games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc all have sex and violence (probably drugs as well in some from) in them so they can be classed as AAA despite not being that memorable a game (ask people in 10 years about Mass Effect and I doubt few will remember it).

 

[Zwiebelchen]

If you have a new map that is not old (was not yesterdays fad) and has a reasonably polished description it is not that hard to fill. I often see 8 player lobbies for entirely new maps fill in about 5-7 minutes odd.

Not my observation, tbh.

Keep in mind the EU is a ghost town, all UK players use US servers and the rest of the EU does not play SC2 much. US also is a ghost town during EU peek times, it only is really active at US peek times for logical reasons.

Heart of the Swarm was released only two years ago. It's a real pathetic display of Blizzard's efforts that the community is almost dead only 2 years after the release of a major expansion. Due to the lobby mechanics, WC3 almost feels more alive than SC2 nowadays - and that is after almost 10 years. Also, I'm a european. I can not play at US peak times, so why should I even bother with this game then?

The actual problem with PC gamming is the sort of games played and where. A large percentage of NVidia's high end products (gamming quality) are sold for commercial purposes to companies as they are the real users of GPU power (Titan series is a total flop for gammers as its main selling point, full speed double float computation, is only used by professional software).

I think it's more the simplicity of console gaming that is attracting players. People don't want to deal with hardware and software issues. That is why Apple had a super-nova explosion in popularity after the first iPhone in 2007.
It's ironic that SC2 and the PC in general share the same image problem: unstable, slow, hard to learn...

Dedicated PC players generally play highly competitive games like MBOAs, and FPS. Most PC gammers play crappy games like on facebook or simple games like minecraft. PC gamers in developing countries play old games as that is all their systems can handle. A lot of modern kids don't bother with PC and rather play games on smartphones and consoles like the XBO and PS4.

There is a lot of money in PC gamming still, but not for silly or unique fun games. It is basically AAA or barely pay rent next month. Thus why games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc all have sex and violence (probably drugs as well in some from) in them so they can be classed as AAA despite not being that memorable a game (ask people in 10 years about Mass Effect and I doubt few will remember it).

I just wanted to comment on Mass Effect here: The game was released in 2007 and is still a strong landmark. I highly doubt it will be forgotten in 10 years... especially with so few memorable AAA releases every year.
There's literally nothing to play for a PC gamer currently (if you're not into MOBAs). There's several good kickstarters that will be released this year (Pillars of Eternity will hit the shelves next week), but not a single AAA release I care about.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Heart of the Swarm was released only two years ago. It's a real pathetic display of Blizzard's efforts that the community is almost dead only 2 years after the release of a major expansion. Due to the lobby mechanics, WC3 almost feels more alive than SC2 nowadays - and that is after almost 10 years. Also, I'm a european. I can not play at US peak times, so why should I even bother with this game then?

SC2 has superior lobby mechanics to WC3. Unlike WC3 where 98% of games are empty ghost robot games, SC2 can filter for only active lobbies with 1 or more humans (not robots) waiting in them.

EU is a small place as most people cannot communicate with each other and few people even play computer games anymore. As such as an English player your only option is to play on US servers and try to do so around peek time. This applies to all games now that are not FPS (the most popular sort of game in UK).

It's ironic that SC2 and the PC in general share the same image problem: unstable, slow, hard to learn...

SC2 is not unstable. It is surprisingly hard to crash.

I just wanted to comment on Mass Effect here: The game was released in 2007 and is still a strong landmark. I highly doubt it will be forgotten in 10 years... especially with so few memorable AAA releases every year.
There's literally nothing to play for a PC gamer currently (if you're not into MOBAs). There's several good kickstarters that will be released this year (Pillars of Eternity will hit the shelves next week), but not a single AAA release I care about.

Almost all AAA games hit all consoles now. Porting a game from PC to PS4 and XBO is like a weeks work at most thanks to the unified architecture they all use.

What Blizzard needs to consider is porting SC2 to XBO and PS4. I am pretty sure in the UK more people own PS4s/XBOs than they own PCs capable of running SC2 decently. All they need is a mouse and keyboard and they should be good to go. Especially if they can get mixed-play with PC gamers and free arcade to those systems I am sure SC2 popularity will skyrocket.

 

[istvan921]

SC2 is not unstable. It is surprisingly hard to crash.

You are right about that one, even normal un-moded Warcraft 3 crashes quite often,but my modded Warcraft 3 crashes quite to often these days cause i had modified it way to much now.

 

[Astromen]

It would be awesome convert those models to Warcraft 3

 

[Dr Super Good]

The assets are now live.

 

[istvan921]

Where? please give us a link.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Where? please give us a link.

Here.
Download and install StarCraft II (choose appropriate localization). The download is ~8-10 GB. Of this 600 MB odd is the WC3 assets.

 

[Tya]

http://gfycat.com/VigorousWeakGuineafowl

It lives!

Pretty surprised how good these 10 year old models still look.

 

[Linaze]

I was hoping they'd look a lot more improved.