Blizzard, What Are You Doing? Signed: Nathan Grayson, Eight Years Old
Another remaster that misses the point
Today Blizzard announced remasters of its classic fantasy real-time strategy hits Warcraft I&II, the games that put it on the map in the distant, functional past of the ‘90s. I should be celebrating; the second Warcraft as unequivocally my favorite game as a young child. I spent God only knows how many hundreds of hours playing it, and even He eventually got bored of watching me make my own horrible little maps and walked away. These remasters, though? They ain’t it.
I’ll preface this by saying that I’m very glad these classics remain playable. I’m sure Blizzard’s making a pretty penny off doing so, but at least it’s keeping its history alive. That said, I will be playing these re-releases with the new graphics turned off, because just look at them:
Warcraft Remastered Battle Chest Launch Trailer
The art looks basic and generic where the original pixels inspired imagination, letting your mind fill in the gaps of these units’ physical features. Some, like Ogres and Ogre Magi, appeared almost photorealistic to young me, who sought to recreate them (over and over and over) in drawings and other, larger-scale art projects. In trying to more fully inhabit this universe whose collection of Little Guys inspired me to dare to dream, I constructed life-sized (relative to an eight-year-old) paper dolls of nearly every unit in the game. It was my Everest, entirely because – again – the original game left room for interpretation.
Now admittedly, I’m no longer a small child fueled entirely by starry-eyed wonder, and that’s definitely part of the problem. But Warcraft’s original look was a product of its limitations, and trying to pave over that with plastic-y sheen is a mistake. I don’t know who the new graphics are for – I doubt these old games are going to lure in many new players, especially with art that looks like it belongs in a vastly less-intricate game than Warcraft – but it’s certainly not me.
You could only vote for fascists. One personable, one arse-hole, both as fascist as they come.
An unironic "both sides". How original.
I have no intentions of looking at your profile, so I'll assume you're joking. Because I prefer that option.
In either case, one of those candidates will be worse for Palestinians, LGBTQ folks, women, the climate, etc.. I actually care about those groups and causes.
Lol, quite literally this week Biden went back on his word on the export block of weapons to Israel. From the outside looking in, there's no difference.
So even if I were to grant that on Israel/Palestine they were no different (which I don't), we're going to throw all of those other groups and causes under the bus?
The fact they are in contention after 4y is evidence enough they mean jack shit for either side. Once they are codified into law they lose value in attracting single issue voters like you. I reiterate, from the outside looking in, same same. There's a reason even though AOC saw good congressional results personally, her district swung wildly red for the presidential results. I just can't wrap my head around backstabbing Bernie to nominate a female Kissinger for an election and 8y later you're still paying the price. There's no left in the US, just far right and further right...
Proof you either aren't arguing in good faith, or you have the reading and comprehension skills of a dehydrated snail.
I have no interest in continuing this.