Starcraft: Ghost in purgatory
Blizzard indefinitely postpones long-awaited shooter; shifts console development focus to next-gen platforms.
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot
Posted Mar 27, 2006 10:48 am PT

Back in the fall of 2002, when current-generation consoles were brand-spanking new and just starting to show what they could do, Blizzard Entertainment announced its first serious foray into console gaming, an action-oriented offshoot to its PC real-time strategy hit Starcraft. The new game, Starcraft: Ghost, was to be developed for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube.

Starcraft: Ghost was originally scheduled for release in 2003, but it endured a series of delays. First it slipped to 2004, and then Blizzard switched developers from Nihilistic Software to Swingin' Ape Studios, pushing the project back to 2005. Things were apparently going well with Ghost, since Blizzard bought out Swingin' Ape in May of 2005, but the game slipped off the 2005 release calendar, and the publisher eventually canned the GameCube edition.

Now the PlayStation 2 and Xbox look like they may be likewise canceled, as Blizzard has announced that it is indefinitely postponing production on Ghost to focus the company's console efforts on next-gen platforms. This doesn't necessarily mean Ghost is headed for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Revolution, however, as Blizzard president and cofounder Mike Morhaime said in a statement.

"Like many in the industry, we've been impressed with the potential of the new consoles, and we're looking forward to exploring that potential further," Morhaime said. "In addition to allowing us to determine the best course for Starcraft: Ghost, this review period will help us lay the groundwork for our future console games."

This might not come as much of a surprise to fans of the company. A Blizzard product catalog that shipped with its massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft over a year ago proclaimed that Ghost was "Coming soon to next-generation consoles." At the time, a Blizzard representative told GameSpot that the catalog listing was wrong and that the game was not going to make the next-gen jump.

Please no Starcraft 2, Broow War IMO the best strategy game so far, and it is the only RTS where all the races are well balanced while still haveing very different units.

the original command and conquer kicked starcraft's ass.

I'd pay good money just to have the ORIGINAL starcraft (environment, units and so fourth along with the editor) ported to a newer better game engine, one that can run above 640x480, and uses the video card (rather than just the CPU).
That and have dynamic lights, pretty 3 graphics and multiple view angles. I don't think they really need to change anything in the units (other than they could change the scales of things, and add things like WC3's autocasting for things like medic restoration). Maybe some more command options for units too...and be able to select more than 12 units....and be able to control more than 200 supply...

I'm not fully convinced that 3D is better for RTS games. Warcraft 3 is nice and all, but it feels kinda wrong sometimes.

I'm not fully convinced that 3D is better for RTS games. Warcraft 3 is nice and all, but it feels kinda wrong sometimes.

Myth 2 (OK, so it's technically a RTT game), proves the 3D can work for RTS'. It just depends how you do it. Warcraft 3 did it wrong.

If Starcraft 2 includes heroes in custom games I will cry. Hero management along with far too many fancy spell effects that drown the battlefield are the reasons I don't like WC3 as much as SC.

Yeah. I have no problem with RPGs - in fact I don't really play any games other than Dark Ages of Camelot, and Oblivion at the moment - and both are RPGs.

But when I play an RTS, I want an RTS, not an RTS with pointless RPG elements attached. Hence WC3 didn't satisfy, I guess.

I'm going to add a 90 person cap and upkeep, which further reduce the roles of regular units and thus make high-level heroes vital.

But when I play an RTS, I want an RTS, not an RTS with pointless RPG elements attached. Hence WC3 didn't satisfy, I guess.

the original command and conquer kicked starcraft's ass.

That and have dynamic lights, pretty 3 graphics and multiple view angles. I don't think they really need to change anything in the units (other than they could change the scales of things, and add things like WC3's autocasting for things like medic restoration). Maybe some more command options for units too...and be able to select more than 12 units....and be able to control more than 200 supply...

Only thing I miss in Starcraft is the scatter command used in the C&C games and Myth. Damn you and your irradiating Science Vessels, Jonas!

I'd pay good money just to have the ORIGINAL starcraft (environment, units and so fourth along with the editor) ported to a newer better game engine, one that can run above 640x480, and uses the video card (rather than just the CPU).
That and have dynamic lights, pretty 3 graphics and multiple view angles. I don't think they really need to change anything in the units (other than they could change the scales of things, and add things like WC3's autocasting for things like medic restoration). Maybe some more command options for units too...and be able to select more than 12 units....and be able to control more than 200 supply...

Of course, I can't play Starcraft anymore either...after a fateful reformat a year or two ago, I realized I can no longer find my original SC cd, only my broodwar one...and I don't think I have the cd-key for it, anyways. Alas.

The SC battle chest is only like $20.

Except that I'm really really cheap, and it's the principle of thing...already owning the cd I shouldn't have to buy another one. I will of course grant you that I'm the one who lost it to begin with, but I enjoy complaining about not getting to play SC as much as I would enjoy going back and playing it for a few hours, so it all works out in the end. The biggest thing is that I don't have the time to get addicted to battle.net as DiabloII is taking up all of my leftover time from Kingdom Hearts II. (well, at least on the days that my monitor decides to behave).

Although this has me thinking...with Starcraft and Diablo run on the new Intel Macs? I imagine no, but there is always Bootcamp...

Yes. Because they were both carbonated, so they'll run under Rosetta.

I'd have to agree I had more fun with Command and Conquer: Red Alert: Aftermath. Before the days of mass micro. Damn I think i'm going to find the game now. Besides nothing, NOTHING can rival the map the hills have eyes. You had a shit load of civillians between your base who couldn't be controlled. They're normally on a lot of levels with pistols. This time they ran around with flamethrowers, teslacoils, machine guns, and nukes. Nothing better than PRAYING that the civis didn't just decide to wipe you off the face of the earth since they were so random, or better yet allying yourself with them against the computers.

The problem with pretty light and different camera angles and all that stuff is that it takes away from gameplay. In warcraft I have had games where there have been so many effects on creatures that I could not see my units below.

Heh, my roommate who plays Starcraft a lot has a lot of trouble with Warcraft III because of the crazy graphical stuff. He just cannot see which units are his. Personally, I'd rather see a sprite-based Starcraft II, but I really don't think that'll happen. Ultimately Warcraft II or Starcraft is more easily played than Warcraft III as a result of "advancement".