Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fury on September 19, 2002, 04:06:58 am
-
I don't know if you have found this out yet or not, but because there is not posts or topics regarding this, here you go. ;)
http://www.starcraft2.com/
-
they just bought the URL, they said at the E3 it wasn't being made anytime soon.
-
Wow...this is certainly interesting. can't wait for Starcraft 2. I was a bit disappointed when the good guys lost in the expansion pack and the Kerrigan won the entire sector.
I got a feeling Starcraft 2 wil be made to be like Warcraft 3. Everything will be in 3D format. But the graphics will be 10 times better no doubt.
-
I guess Blizzard is going to 'attack' us since something is counting down... :p
-
hmmmmm, odd I wonder what's happening in 10 hours?
(maybe they actually are going to make it despite their "no" comments..)
-
Originally posted by venom2506
they just bought the URL, they said at the E3 it wasn't being made anytime soon.
ok, and to back me up:
http://www.starcraft3.com/
oh, look! page coming soon!
really, guys...
-
hey, don't crush our hope ;)
-
Venom just a non-believer, the countdown has begun.
-
Hey, I think it's legit because it's at the Blizzard site.
-
Cool! :D But I don't believe it until I see the press release that they're actually going forward with making it.
-
might be legit, but how come the OFFICIAL blizzard site says nothing of it, and how come the BATTLE.NET never has 'Starcraft 2' banners!?
-
It's set to expire at the start of the Tokyo Game Show
My bet is it's a console RTS, why would they make SC2 so soon after WC3?
-
Meh, never liked starcraft. It was too simple:rolleyes: I mean, the rush was the only strategy in that game that you needed, and if you didn't rush, you lost.
Just plain dumb is what I thought...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
might be legit, but how come the OFFICIAL blizzard site says nothing of it, and how come the BATTLE.NET never has 'Starcraft 2' banners!?
Cos they dont want to confirm anything..keep everyone in the dark.
-
They said "no"
I don't think they would lie. they would have said " we have no information about this" or something like that, otherwise.
No is no.
-
Protoss rush......!
-
We're sorry. Automatic installation of Microsoft Virtual Machine is no longer provided for Microsoft Windows XP.
why am I getting this? f***ing crap-o-soft.
-
which reminds me... anyone up for a game? cause of course i'll 0wn you :)
j/p
i want to play someone though
-
Originally posted by Solid Snake
why am I getting this? f***ing crap-o-soft.
java asked crosoft to remove the d/l from their sites, and crosoft did remove it, so now you have to find it by yourself.
bah, if they announce SC2, anyway, cool.
-
3:30:12 (HR/M/S)
7PM.........................................!:shaking: :shaking: :shaking:
-
:lol:
this countdown was for a 404? :lol:
-
Assuming the countdown really has begun, I'm going to say Blizzard was really stupid to wait this long. Though I'd buy the game just to see what happens in the story(highlight post to see hidden text*spoiler*)
I want to see those Protoss-Zerg hybrids in action. My guess is Duran turns on Kerrigan and defeats her.
-
the countdown is (should be ) over actually :p t'was a java countdown ), but the link is broooooooken :p
-
More correctly...the site is broken :)
-
Booo...its not StarCraft 2...its some PS2 game. Bleh!
-
It's Starcraft: [l]Renegade[/l] Ghost!
-
I can see the headlines for the papers tomorrow:
Blizzard to Gamers: HAHAHHAHAHHAHAH SUCKERS!!!!
-
Well I was sorta right o.O
-
(http://www.blizzard.com/images/ghost/screenshots/ss02.jpg)
press release:
Blizzard Entertainment® Announces StarCraft: Ghost™
Blizzard unveils plans to bring the legendary franchise to console gamers
MAKUHARI, Japan – September 20, 2002 – During a press conference today at the Tokyo Game Show, Blizzard Entertainment®, a studio of the games division of Vivendi Universal Publishing, unveiled StarCraft: Ghost™, a tactical-action console game set in Blizzard’s epic StarCraft® universe. StarCraft: Ghost is currently under development and is scheduled for a worldwide release on multiple console systems. The game will be co-published by Capcom and Blizzard Entertainment in Japan; further announcements regarding platform/country specifics will be announced in the months to come.
In StarCraft: Ghost, players take the role of Nova, a lethal Ghost operative skillfully trained in the arts of espionage and tactical combat. Twenty years of ruthless physical conditioning and techno-psychological instruction have made Nova a being of terrifying potential. With the help of a determined group of allies, players follow a series of story-driven missions, engaging in a deadly mix of planetary battles and dangerous solo operations. To complete their mission objectives, players must execute intelligent tactical decisions while mastering an advanced arsenal of sophisticated weaponry.
“We’re very excited about returning to the StarCraft series,” stated Mike Morhaime, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder. “Our roots are based in console gaming, and we look forward to developing this universe for the next-generation console systems.”
Key features in StarCraft: Ghost include:
· Revolutionary new style of gameplay featuring enhanced physical and psionic abilities
· Hostile Environment Suit designed to magnify strength, agility, and speed
· Over-the-top special effects offer stunning visuals and unparalleled tactical realism
· Immersive 3D environments showcase rich textures and highly stylized character models
· Unique Calldown abilities allow players to target large-scale attacks from the ground
· A deeply evolving storyline set in Blizzard’s gritty sci-fi StarCraft universe
As the story unravels, players find themselves traversing uncharted terrain and battling adversaries never before seen by followers of the series. Bold 3D graphics give players a new, in-depth perspective on familiar planets and former battlefields from the legendary universe. A dynamic 3rd-person camera view displays dramatic lighting, startling detail, and a blend of realistic and fantastical design. Co-developed by Blizzard Entertainment and Nihilistic Software, Inc.™, StarCraft: Ghost is scheduled for release in late 2003.
Since its debut in 1998, the #1-selling StarCraft series* has won industry acclaim and has shattered sales records worldwide with over six million copies shipped. Blizzard continued the series with the critically acclaimed StarCraft: Brood War™, which won multiple Expansion Pack of the Year awards and is still considered by many critics to be one of the best add-on products to date.
Best known for blockbuster hits including the Warcraft®, StarCraft, and Diablo® series, Blizzard Entertainment (www.blizzard.com), a studio of the games division of Vivendi Universal Publishing, is a premier developer and publisher of entertainment software renowned for creating many of the industry’s most critically acclaimed games. Blizzard’s track record includes seven #1-selling games and multiple Game of the Year awards. The company’s free Internet gaming service Battle.net® reigns as the largest in the world, with millions of active users.
* NPD Intellect/PC Data games category monthly sales April-September 1998
I think this gonna not just be on console. but if its console only (just like Metroid Prime) i would buy a console just for it! hopefully it come PC!
-
..................... wow..............
that was un expected...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
..................... wow..............
that was un expected...
This starcrafter is officially locked on. she looks better then lara croft!
-
-
-
-
-
Blizzard has never made a console game, I dont think they will start now. Going console immediatly shuts down millions of sales for them. Games like Starcraft, Diablo 2, and War3 made them millions, if they were console games, they would of sold as good as Paper Mario RPG *shudder*
-
Oh hell! an SC game for console, you've got to be kidding me......
THEY BETRAYED US! ;)
hey since that article is based at Makuhari Messe, was it translated from japanese or was some american press dude there..?
-
Originally posted by vadar_1
Blizzard has never made a console game, I dont think they will start now. Going console immediatly shuts down millions of sales for them. Games like Starcraft, Diablo 2, and War3 made them millions, if they were console games, they would of sold as good as Paper Mario RPG *shudder*
Umm...
September 19, 2002 - Although seen primarily as a PC developer, Blizzard is certainly no stranger to the world of consoles. From well-known titles like Diablo, StarCraft 64, Warcraft II, and Blackthorne to lesser-known works such as Norse by Norsewest, The Death and Return of Superman, Rock 'n Roll Racing, and Justice League Task Force, Blizzard actually started out as a console developer on the Genesis and SNES back in the early '90s before any of the PC "Craft" games they're so well-known for today.
The complete preview text can be found either on IGN or here:
http://www.piratecove.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001214
I have a PS2 so I'm not terribly fussed. As long as they make it more like MGS and less like Oni/Max Payne (in terms of camera/character movement) I'll be happy.
-
mmh, jealous of renegade.
Damn them, why the hell console only?
-
Methinks Vivendi/Universal's got a massive mad-on for console games. Every studio they own is cranking one out.
-
Doesn't bother me...
-
It does me...I don't have a console.
-
Well (http://www.animeinferno.com/ubb/graemlins/thefinger.gif) to you then :D
-
I never really got into the original Starcraft (TA is better :p), so it doesn't matter too much to me what they do here...
-
BAH! It's a console game!
That sucks big time, the only console I have ever had is old Nintendo (8bit).
And they have no intends to convert it to PC! :mad:
*sigh* Oh well, couldn't expect them to make a really good decision. I don't care a **** about Diablos and Warcraft 3 sucks IMO. Only good Blizzard game that I am still playing is Starcraft, and now they sucked that down too. :shaking:
-
:rolleyes:
Oh, and a hearty (http://www.animeinferno.com/ubb/graemlins/thefinger.gif) to you too :p
-
That was one of the shortest blips on my game-radar.
If it ain't for PC I aint wanna hear 'bout it.
So buh-bye :ha:
-
heh, the shortest blips on my game radar these days are typically PC games. Unreal 2, Unreal Tournament 2003, Doom 3, Battlefield 1942...
-
Originally posted by vadar_1
Blizzard has never made a console game, I dont think they will start now. Going console immediatly shuts down millions of sales for them. Games like Starcraft, Diablo 2, and War3 made them millions, if they were console games, they would of sold as good as Paper Mario RPG *shudder*
well it's a bit late, since they've already released that they're going to make this game consoles only
-
I find the decision to release it as console only extremly dumb, especially since a PC port shouldn't be that difficult. But, it is Blizzard's decision, and if they want to nose-dive their market into the ground I say let them. And that Starcraft2.com site has been regestered by Blizzard at least since SC:BW was released, so it's nothing new or enlightening
-
Originally posted by StratComm
But, it is Blizzard's decision, and if they want to nose-dive their market into the ground I say let them.
yeah but remember they had the good success of Starcraft in 1998, Broodwar a year or two later, and then this year the so-far awesome success of Warcraft 3. I'm sure they can more than afford to screw up once or twice.
i agree with you though... i'd say they should have it for PC...
-
Doesnt look too bad actually, :yes: ... except its console only :no:
The missions set in instalations were quite intresting, i can see how a first person shooter could come from it, plus set in the starcraft world - it'll be a winner.
... Although i was looking forward to Starcraft "2" being a RTS. This may upset some people, but i would prefer starcraft 2 to freespace 3... it just looks more likely.
-
my guess is that you'll have starcraft2 in 3 or 4 years.
-
Console only:shaking: Blizzard Going bad?? :sigh: I Gonna kill the desingers of SC: Ghost... :shaking: :shaking: Blizard= Console.... Nintendo... Gamecube...X-BOX(m$) Ahhhh!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(http://www.plauder-smilies.de/bawling.gif)
-
Originally posted by Reaper
Console only:shaking: Blizzard Going bad?? :sigh: I Gonna kill the desingers of SC: Ghost... :shaking: :shaking: Blizard= Console.... Nintendo... Gamecube...X-BOX(m$) Ahhhh!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(http://www.plauder-smilies.de/bawling.gif)
You are a ****wit.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
You are a ****wit.
takes one to know one :p
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
takes one to know one :p
Takes one to know that the other two are f**kwits too.:D
Anyway, back to the topic.
Basically, I was quite disappointed when Blizzard announced that Starcraft: Ghost was going to be for console only. First Person Shooters are best played on the computer in my opinion. I'm sure most of us can fight, run and strafe better with a mouse and keyboard than a bloody controller.:mad:
Overall, I think the graghics looks very good. I hope Blizzard does produce a version for the PC after the console version as well.
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
Basically, I was quite disappointed when Blizzard announced that Starcraft: Ghost was going to be for console only. First Person Shooters are best played on the computer in my opinion. I'm sure most of us can fight, run and strafe better with a mouse and keyboard than a bloody controller.:mad:
Overall, I think the graghics looks very good. I hope Blizzard does produce a version for the PC after the console version as well.
Thing is, this isn't a first person shooter it's a third person game and if games like Metal Gear Solid (arguably one of the best games ever made) are anything to go by this is a genre that can work really well on consoles. Also, with the USB ports offered by the PlayStation 2 (and to a certain extent the Xbox), the control issues of FPS's on consoles are all but a thing of the past.
-
Bleargh. I like how pretty much every other game community I go on has been ragging on this game since we first pfound out it was an RPG-oid.
You can have your good 3PS and you can have your bad 3PS, just like any other genre. Metal Gear is famously good- but it's one of the few. Absolute ****bags like Nocturne are far more common. And I don't care how pretty Blizzard games are- they can NOT make a decent character-oriented game to save their corporate lives. The pathetic attempts they made in StarCraft and WC whatever are perfect examples- the stilted dialogue and moronic plotlines of the first detracted significantly from the fact that it was downright cool-looking and a decent introductory-level strat. And I don't think I need mention the horror that is the new WarCraft- talk about pandering to the uncritical masses.
I like Blizzard. Compared to most of the major strat game corps out there (like the W-word, which is not to be said n my presence), they're fantastic, and they actually include a degree of strategy in their games. You're still not gonna get much outa a pincers movement in StarCraft if you're outgunned, but there are certain tricks and counters to learn, and Blizzard's interfaces aren't half as rough as most real strats'. But they're not good at anything involving a plot, or fewer than a thousand people. They just aren't. And part of being a good game maker is knowing where your weak spots lie, and avoiding them like the devil. Blizzard seems intent on poking said weak spots until we all get sick of them and storm their offices, and that's (naturally) bad for everyone involved.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I like Blizzard. Compared to most of the major strat game corps out there
IMHO, compared to most major strategy game companies small companies seem to do better in the area of "innovations" and actually filling the holes that these major companies make. If only they'd do some sort of nice co-operation.. (or at least learn from each other)
for a nice-looking strategy game (so far): try www.teridianshadow.com
(I think it makes sense starcraft: ghosts is a 3PS, 3ps games have more personality in them IMHO [in FPS all you have for personality is a big gun])
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Bleargh. I like how pretty much every other game community I go on has been ragging on this game since we first pfound out it was an RPG-oid.
You can have your good 3PS and you can have your bad 3PS, just like any other genre. Metal Gear is famously good- but it's one of the few. Absolute ****bags like Nocturne are far more common. And I don't care how pretty Blizzard games are- they can NOT make a decent character-oriented game to save their corporate lives. The pathetic attempts they made in StarCraft and WC whatever are perfect examples- the stilted dialogue and moronic plotlines of the first detracted significantly from the fact that it was downright cool-looking and a decent introductory-level strat. And I don't think I need mention the horror that is the new WarCraft- talk about pandering to the uncritical masses.
why not? Westwood ( hargh!!!!) did a great job with renegade, and their latest attempt at a 3d game ( lands of lore 3 ) was pathetic. Give Blizzard a chance ( her, not that I will, it's for console only, so I don't give a damn if it's good or bad actually ).
-
Originally posted by venom2506
why not? Westwood ( hargh!!!!) did a great job with renegade,
No. They did not. Just because it wasn't brain-hemmoragingly bad this time (neither was Dune, entirely, before they decided to **** that one up for money, and it mostly didn't suck because you could run over people, which always makes for a good game) doesn't mean it was good. There are THOUSANDS of fantastic strats out there, and almost as many good companies. Westwood is ****, always was ****, and forever will be ****. They insult strat games by claiming that their monstrous abortions belong in their ranks, and I do believe Westwood and EA are two of the chief reasons hardly anyone digs real strats.
"Send your thousand tanks over there! Now over there! Oops, that guy has a thousand more tanks! Quick! Build a thousand more! Wow, willya look at that- that guy just shot into the dirt over there and blew one of my dudes up who was two squares away!"
-
:rolleyes:
can never have a serious argument with you. I like Westwod games, renegade is awesome, and in case you don't know, it's a FPS, not a RTS. but as your brain seems thicker than the dirt on the wall in front of my apartment... :rolleyes:
I'm not sure what you mean by " dig real start" ( the "dig" part ), but if the CéC series works that well, it's coz it's FUN, unlike games like, pff... dunno... a realistic RTS? Dunno any anyway. If you want real start, go and play panzer general, and then die from boredom :p
Really, I hate when people don't know what they're talking about. You've never played in C&C online, don't you? try tanks rushes against me in RA2, for a laught.
Anyway, once again I waste my time arguing for nothing, so end of rant.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Really, I hate when people don't know what they're talking about.
I think that sums it up right there. Yes, I gave Westwood's crapulous games their chance. They're the dullest, and the worst, I've ever seen made in over ten years. Every bullet hits its target, the difference between units is basically just speed and power of weapons, and the terrain is generally nothing more than a few lines you can't cross. Worst. Games. Ever. Simple as that.
I'm sure there are movie nuts who claim that, say, Titanic or SW Ep. 1 is the best movie ever, and that anyone who disagrees is a moron who knows nothing about the high art of movies? Yyou know what? Their infantile approach doesn't make them any less staggeringly wrong. Ask any REAL strat gamer his opinion on the Westwood games- you'll get the same response you did from me. They're fluff.
You think that because the sell, they have to be good? That's a pathetic argument- you seen what passes for TV these days? WHat's in the box offices and best-seller lists? You think games are any different from every other part of popular culture? Time to get a reality check, man. Crap generally wins out, because people are generally too damn lazy to think. Works doubly in computers, because the majority are computer-illiterate and expect the same sort of mindless entertainment they get from TV. You know, Minesweeper is a much more popular game than Go. Wanna know whY? 'Cos peopel like you can't be arsed to fire a neuron once in a while. That's it.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Every bullet hits its target, the difference between units is basically just speed and power of weapons, and the terrain is generally nothing more than a few lines you can't cross.
that proves you've never really played them. a single exemple: in the first C&c, the tank inability to hit infantry because of the accuracy needed to hit them pissed me off ( you have to hit right into the target to hurt it, was easy for a tank, not an infantry ), and you had to run over the infantry to get rid of them. I've been into red alert modding, and I've played a lot with the ini files. and you know what? you couldn't believe how many entries you have for a single vehicle, and entry for each type of terran ( a hummer will go faster on a road than in the grass, as you would have noticed if you had really played, and not launched the game writting down all the critics you were about to throw at it ile the game was loading ), there's an inaccuracy factor for every weapon, a range, and an amount of fuel for missiles ( missiles can miss their target, unlike in starcraft for esemple ). there's a type factor, meaning that a sniper bullet will be very efficient against infantry and useless against tanks, and a shell tank will be devastating for a building, but not that efficient against an heavily armored mammoth tank ). There's many things like that, but, assuming, you'd know that wouldn't be there, you didn't ven try and look at if they existed or not. I keep my statement, that you've never PLAYED any C&C game, you've just run them to criticize, period.
edit: and where the hell did I say C&C was good coz it sold well? Don't make me say what i didn't. As for "firing neurons", achieve half the things I've already done in my life thanx to my sole brains, then I'll allow you to criticize me.
-
The original C&C I enjoyed for many of the reasons Venom stated. However when Westwood did not change the formula of the game over time, I quickly became bored and irritated with the series.
...and before I hear "if it ain't broke don't fix it" this was a case of dilberately milking what was originally a quality product and then turning it into well mediocrity over time.
-
Never mind that the whole thing was a ripoff of their Dune game in the first place- which, aside from the fact that it's actually a bit better, is pretty much the reason I exempt Dune from my general criticism of Westwood. But, considering how formulaic the games were, they could at least have picked a better formula- it IS tank rushing, and that's about it.
Venom: Uh huh. Right. 'Cos, you know, last time I saw, even when the tanks hit pieces fo dirt the infantry had previously occupied, the infantry felt the hit. Seems like YOU'VE hardly played the game.
Yeah, you're a real Ghandi or Einstein, I'm sure. What's your job? You a secretary? Office worker? Maybe even some pimply counselor at an adventure camp? Don't come off all snotty to me, son, anyone who responds to (truthful and fair, but that's irrelevant) criticism of a ****ing COMPUTER GAME like it's a direct insult to their manhood, mother, and car has the mentality of a twelve-year-old, and is not worth more than mild contempt. Go pen an angsty poem or wail about how life isn't fair, why don't you.
By the way, EVERY ONE of the "features" you listed comes in even the most basic true strats. I'm talking ****ing Declaration of War here, things that almost are the same on paper. Nothing to write home about- nothing to even mention, if you're claiming to be a strategy game, unless you wanna be laughed back onto the shelves for a very, very long time. I've seen shareware with greater complexity than C&C.
-
"reads stryke's post"
You expect a reply to what is basically just an insulting post?
play alone kid.
-
Hell, it seems to work for you, one would think you'd have the common decency not to expect others to read yours unless you did hte same for them.:D
-
I have the common decency of not insulting people. You should try, some day.
-
but as your brain seems thicker than the dirt on the wall in front of my apartment...
Really, I hate when people don't know what they're talking about
you didn't ven try and look at if they existed or not. I keep my statement, that you've never PLAYED any C&C game, you've just run them to criticize, period.
Etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, list goes on, all that ****.
No comment.
-
we don't have the same definition of insulting ( I'll grant you the first one tho ). If arguing agaisnt what you say is insulting you, I understand why you hate everything.
bah, I don't care.
-
step up to the challenge venom!
It takes a real man to walk away from a fight
Kudos to you!
-
Assuming that I'm making **** up just because I disagree with your estimation of the game would qualify as "insulting".
If I felt insulted by every idea that disagreed with mine, first of all I wouldn't like to argue so much, and second of all I'd act more like you when I did. I do neither, and I like it when someone has a well-thought-out concept radically different from any of mine and can convey it. Conversely, that means it annoys me all the more when someone clearly HASN'T thought something out, but still insists on defending their "point" rabidly, descending to insults, character attacks, and assumptions that the other is a moron. It's the signature of a troll, and troll hunting is ALSO one of my hobbies.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's the signature of a troll, and troll hunting is ALSO one of my hobbies.
hehe lol Stryke :p :D :lol: :cool:
-
Sharrup. It's communicable by proximity.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
mmh, jealous of renegade.
Damn them, why the hell console only?
1/ money. - more money from console games
2/ competition - there's less FPS typey games on consoles. (ok technically, it's not an FPS per se)
And Pc conversion takes time and money - you have rewrite a lot of code in some occassions, and there is massive hardware differences. It's the same in reverse - look at how long it took to convert Half Life and Deus Ex to the PS2.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Assuming that I'm making **** up just because I disagree with your estimation of the game would qualify as "insulting".
If I felt insulted by every idea that disagreed with mine, first of all I wouldn't like to argue so much, and second of all I'd act more like you when I did. I do neither, and I like it when someone has a well-thought-out concept radically different from any of mine and can convey it. Conversely, that means it annoys me all the more when someone clearly HASN'T thought something out, but still insists on defending their "point" rabidly, descending to insults, character attacks, and assumptions that the other is a moron. It's the signature of a troll, and troll hunting is ALSO one of my hobbies.
well, i feel insulted whebn you say I have the menatl age of a 12 years old dude, that i'm a moron, a troll, etc. compare with what I said.
Anyway, funny how you demonstrate that you do exactly the opposite of what you say you're doing in the same post :p
anyway, you don't need to reply , it's the last time I check this thread, it has lost all interest.
-
Did I ever deny I was being insulting? It's no less an accurate summation of the ass you've made yourself here because it's insulting.
-
change of subject: anyone want to get 0wned at Starcraft? i'll bet you won't beat me!
-
The only thing I have to say about Starcraft Ghost is....aren't there enough shooter out there? I mean we have Counterstrike (old but good), Unreal 2003, DooM 3, Quake 3, Halo, these other 2 I forgot the name of.
Isn't there any room for a god tactic game? Blizzard, please make a tactic game again, for me and all the others who love SC.
I mean WarCraft 3 is quite good, but its not StarCraft.
And please don't make it 3D! 2D is all what I need and want.
-
Originally posted by gevatter Lars
The only thing I have to say about Starcraft Ghost is....aren't there enough shooter out there? I mean we have Counterstrike (old but good), Unreal 2003, DooM 3, Quake 3, Halo, these other 2 I forgot the name of.
Isn't there any room for a god tactic game? Blizzard, please make a tactic game again, for me and all the others who love SC.
I mean WarCraft 3 is quite good, but its not StarCraft.
And please don't make it 3D! 2D is all what I need and want.
From what I understand (and admittedly, it's not much) there is only one game in the same league as what they intend Ghost to be (and its the one reason I'm looking forward to it) and thats Metal Gear Solid. It isn't a first person game so it won't compete directly with any of the titles you mention.
-
Originally posted by gevatter Lars
I mean WarCraft 3 is quite good, but its not StarCraft.
i take it you like Starcraft then?
if so, want to play me? i'm sick of playing games and getting BSed every time
-
I think FPS uses first-person not as viewpoint but as your position within the game. First or third person perspective, you are still supposed to be the character running around (as opposed to directing the action from a commander/omnipotent perspective where you are not getting shot at), you are the guy getting shot at, not the one ordering faceless guys to shoot each other. Your health is still the primary concern (yes, killing guys doesn't do any good if it gets your character killed); who ever kept a ghost alive in Starcraft for longer than it took to drop the nuke anyway? So yes, this game still competes with every other FPS on the market. And it has been my experience that the 3rd person viewpoint generally leads to control problems, camera problems, or both, so my expectations are not very high.
-
I take it then, you've never played Metal Gear Solid? That would have to have one of the best control setups (for consoles at least) of any 3rd person game.
As for the whole expendable Ghost thing, thats part of the point of the game. I can't remember if I posted this link here or not so I'll post it again just to make sure:
http://www.piratecove.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001214
Read that article (its original source is IGN btw) carefully, specifically this bit:
Guns are all fine and dandy, but the Ghost unit isn't really a head-on combatant, at least not when you're going against an Ultralisk. In many situations, Nova will have to rely on her wits and a variety of special abilities to make her way through the game. As a Ghost, you will be able to use many of the abilities from the RTS. In addition to boosting her strength, agility, and speed, Nova's Hostile Environment Suit (HES) has a cloaking device embedded in it that can be used to hide your position for a short period of time, which will of course be useful to hide from enemies in a pinch or sneak past an imposing guard. The Ghost lock down ability will come in handy when you're going up against any enemy vehicles as you can knock them out of commission. Also carried over from the RTS is Nova's ability to call in nuclear strikes on the battlefield, which will come in particularly handy if you're caught in the middle of a large-scale battle outdoors.
They acknowledge the fact that the Ghost isn't a "head-on combatant," to use their words, and are making the game around that.
I think FPS uses first-person not as viewpoint but as your position within the game. First or third person perspective, you are still supposed to be the character running around (as opposed to directing the action from a commander/omnipotent perspective where you are not getting shot at), you are the guy getting shot at, not the one ordering faceless guys to shoot each other.
By that logic, every game ever made is a first person game...
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
From what I understand (and admittedly, it's not much) there is only one game in the same league as what they intend Ghost to be (and its the one reason I'm looking forward to it) and thats Metal Gear Solid. It isn't a first person game so it won't compete directly with any of the titles you mention.
And every play is intended to be King Lear, and every book is intended to be 1984 or As I lay Dying, and every movie is intended to be Apocalypse Now. Who wouldn't wanna compare themselves to the top in their field? Lovely intention, doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Doesn't even mean that the game isn't gonna suck thoroughly- just means it's gonna probably suck imitating another game, as opposed to possibly sucking by being creative. I think it might tell you something that it's trying to AVOID competing in the quite rough FPS market- it's no doubt the biggest and most lucrative game genre in the world, and it's where the best graphics and toys start out. IF SC don't wanna compete, it might be because it can't.
In strats, sometimes the units are expendable- in many, they're not. In fact, SC was relatively hero-based in many respects- there were some units you absolutely weren't to let die. In shooters, everyone's expendable but the player, in all but a very few circumstances. Nothing new there.
The lack of "head-on combat" sounds suspiciously similar to the Thief clones.
And most games DON'T have any suggested risk to the player- forget all of the thousands of games which don't involve huge guns, look at strats, look at most of the Myst clones, look at nearly anything outside shooters.
We done now? Can we get to spamming yet?
-
Well, I'm going to wait until it gets a little closer to release before I decide whether or not to write it off. Of course, being a PC fanboy and feeling like you've been robbed of a game I can understand why you want to write it off so soon.
-
Actually, I just like taking the piss out of silly games that are nonetheless hotly anticipated. It gives me that fulfilling sense of revenge for all the times people were duly unimpressed by E2160.:D
That, and I haven't been wrong yet, in a long history of reading between the lines in game ads.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I never really got into the original Starcraft (TA is better :p)
In general terms, I agree. Although I must say I liked Starcraft's story and 3 sided balance, TA was ahead in every other way. Speaking of which, I just saw TA repackaged in an "oldie-goldie" type-box in a computer store today for 25 shekels... 25/4.8 = $5.2. :D I'll probably pick it up, since my original discs are with a friend who I never see anymore... :doubt:
As for Westwood's RTS'es, I have this to say: Dune 2 rocked for it's time, C&C rocked, period, RA was mediocre, Tib Sun sucked, RA2 was incredibly fun considering how "childish" the units looked, Dune 2000 - blah, Emperor rocks. Renegade is great fun, especially multiplayer, but the graphics suck.
Oh, one more thing. If I had seen this thread in the middle of Stryke and Venom's b*tch-slapping match, it would be closed. But I didn't, so consider it at HAMCON 3. Don't start again.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh, one more thing. If I had seen this thread in the middle of Stryke and Venom's b*tch-slapping match, it would be closed. But I didn't, so consider it at HAMCON 3. Don't start again.
Sandwich never fails in cracking me up :p
-
i dont know about you peoples, but i got aleisn vs. predator 2 for my b-day and if you look at the protoss and their dreadlocks (like fenix when he walking through the hallway of the protoss temple or whatever) he looks kinda like a predator with his face and mask on...kinda weird....i thought i would post that here because you peeps were talking about starcraft....im just saying the dreads and the face....nothing more...really...:nod: :nod: