Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Dough with Fish on May 19, 2007, 01:56:46 am
-
Thats right boys, its for real.
1UP Article (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3159659), Gamestop article (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171170.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1), IGN article (http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html) and Gamespy article (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790124p1.html).
Edit: VIDEO (http://tvpot.daum.net/theme/ThemeView.do?themeid=122&lu=m_mono_1)
EDIT: EDIT: Video on Youtube! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXoekeDIW8)
-
Jacked up and good to go!
I'm excited, probably one of the most iconic games of my gaming history (along with Freespace 2 and Jedi Knight), i hope they don't butcher the Seoul...ahem, soul...of this game. despite all the advancements and improvements to realism, some games are almost required to be old school. EA got it right (an amazing feat i say!) with C&C3, making all the right improvements, but keeping the soul of the Command and Conquer games intact. I hope blizzard does likewise and keeps SC2 an expansion to its roots, and doesn't try to rewrite the book.
...and at the very least the cut scenes are going to be awesome...lol
Siege tanks, Ready to roll out!
-
Well only thing I would change is make it more interesting than the original. :P
-
http://www.starcraft2.com/
-
YES it has final come! that trailer is brillant, one thing you can never fault blizz on is the quality of the cinematics, i can't wait for this game!
-
I really hope they take and use the story they made for the Dark Origins level.
-
Eh. Based on IGN's gameplay video it doesn't seem like the gameplay has moved on much at all.
-
Yes, and Starcraft's gameplay was so underdeveloped, so poorly tweaked.
-
The only thing I didn't like in SC was that you could only select 12 units at once.
-
Yeah, that was an attempt to combat rushing. Everything else was pretty much perfect. I'll be quite satisfied if they just copy the gameplay with new graphics and finish the story.
-
Yeah, that was an attempt to combat rushing....
According to my online SC experience, it was greatly ineffective.
-
Makes me wonder how powerful rushing would have been though, if it hadn't been for that artificial obstacle.
-
YES! Ha! This is great! It has finally happened!
I am most excited about this. :D
Story specifics are still being kept under wraps, though from the concept art it seems Kerrigan will somehow be involved.
Well, wasn't that a given? :rolleyes:
-
Well, on one of the liveblogs covering the event (IGN's, I think) say that there isn't going to be the max unit selection this time.
-
I'm really pleased with what I'm seeing and really excited to finally see it come. I think Blizzard is doing the right thing here...they aren't going to change much in terms of how it plays and focus on really impressive unit dynamics and overall balance of the three different sides. Still room in the market for classic RTS games!
-
It'll all end in tears, just wait and see...
-
Well I was a Total Annihilaton player back in the day so maybe i am biased but the gameplay footage doesn't really knock my socks off, especially compared to DoW which is getting to be a couple years old now. Doing a little research and watchng some of the old Starcraft actually seems like 40K only the Space Marines are hicks.
-
Heh, just checked out the main blizzard site. One big sign: "Starcraft II - Hell, it's about time.". I quite agree (as does the marine in the trailer), and I can't wait to get my hands on this :)
-
the gameplay footage doesn't really knock my socks off,
For gods sake they just announced the game and you're expecting a ****ing real life simulation...
C'mon, remember now. We think before we post. M'kay StarSlayer?
-
Nice I have always liked Starcraft more then the warcraft series, the CGI was really good although I really didnt get what it was all about but it looked good.
/Dice
-
Oh yeah, this is so great. I always prayed for another starcraft game, and now it's finally true ( I like the announcement on blizzard, "hell, it's about time :D ")
I hope the story is as epic and good as it was in SC1 (though that's usually something, you can rest assured on by blizzard games).
-
From what I saw, this game will be great. :yes: Am I the only one who noticed that the Terran marines are carrying some sort of shield now? Much like the footmen of Warcraft.
-
Yes, and Starcraft's gameplay was so underdeveloped, so poorly tweaked.
Well done, but what I mean is the RTS genre has evolved considerably since 1998. Even the presentation of SC2 seems to be old-fashioned - unit scale is all out of whack, land and air units appear to be on two different plains rather than actually in some kind of 3D space, 'hills' are not really hills but several levels of flat ground... I don't know. I suppose I just expected them to do more than make a glorified expansion pack.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it'll be tons of fun, it just seems a bit bland to me in the face of more recent RTSes.
-
But it's still just been announced... they've got plenty of time to change that also. I'm so fired up... and this came out on the perfect day too. Because I'm not in the middle of end of year exams or anything.
oh wait, I am. damn.
-
They didn't change anything with the units...battlecruisers still fire ONE measly laser and are tiny..
Blizzard vcould learn a thing or two from C&C3.. a little thing called MULTIPLE WEAPONS/TURRETS...sheesh...
-
the gameplay footage doesn't really knock my socks off,
For gods sake they just announced the game and you're expecting a ****ing real life simulation...
C'mon, remember now. We think before we post. M'kay StarSlayer?
Well I'm not particularly interested in an argument but, just to clarify that this isn't some hip shot analysis without any thought...
I certainly realize that this is early in its development, but if Blizzards willing to post video I don't see why I cannot have an opinion of it. The CGI one of the suit up sequence looked very good, Blizzard has always done a good job in that department. Some of the stuff they made for Ghost made that game's cancellation a bitter pill to swallow. Considering the amount of money they make from the WoW racket Blizzard certainly has the resources to make a Gods Damn Ass Kicking Game To Rule All Others. However, the game play video shows an engine that when fully refined will certainly compete well with the likes of C&C3 and will look very pretty, but unless they are going to rip the guts out and put in a new one I don't see it being the next giant leap in the RTS genre. Generally from other games i have watched develop the base engine does not change once they have developed it as far as the vid in question displays, so what I see now stands a decent chance of reflecting the end result. I certainly maybe wrong and would be happy to be wrong, but if the vid does indicate the final result then it will be a impressive game but not something groundbreaking that shakes up the entire RTS genre. Considering the success of the first one, and the amount of resources Blizzard has, i would hope the developers would shoot for the latter rather then the former.
That's just my opinion.
-
Remember how Starcraft looked like crap when it was first announced? Give Blizzard a break.
-
And before we get all negative and pessimistic of any hyped game, consider how people thought Metroid Prime was gonna turn out, and how it actually turned out. Anything is possible.
-
Well I was a Total Annihilaton player back in the day so maybe i am biased but the gameplay footage doesn't really knock my socks off, especially compared to DoW which is getting to be a couple years old now. Doing a little research and watchng some of the old Starcraft actually seems like 40K only the Space Marines are hicks.
Funny you mention that. On RelicForums, someone brought up that Starcraft and Warcraft are very similar to Warhammer and 40k. Apparently, one of those games (I forget which one they said it was) was actually supposed to be a Warhammer game, but for unknown reasons, Blizzard didn't get the license. One of the Relic employees even confirmed it.
-
the gameplay footage doesn't really knock my socks off,
For gods sake they just announced the game and you're expecting a ****ing real life simulation...
C'mon, remember now. We think before we post. M'kay StarSlayer?
Well I'm not particularly interested in an argument but, just to clarify that this isn't some hip shot analysis without any thought...
I certainly realize that this is early in its development, but if Blizzards willing to post video I don't see why I cannot have an opinion of it. The CGI one of the suit up sequence looked very good, Blizzard has always done a good job in that department. Some of the stuff they made for Ghost made that game's cancellation a bitter pill to swallow. Considering the amount of money they make from the WoW racket Blizzard certainly has the resources to make a Gods Damn Ass Kicking Game To Rule All Others. However, the game play video shows an engine that when fully refined will certainly compete well with the likes of C&C3 and will look very pretty, but unless they are going to rip the guts out and put in a new one I don't see it being the next giant leap in the RTS genre. Generally from other games i have watched develop the base engine does not change once they have developed it as far as the vid in question displays, so what I see now stands a decent chance of reflecting the end result. I certainly maybe wrong and would be happy to be wrong, but if the vid does indicate the final result then it will be a impressive game but not something groundbreaking that shakes up the entire RTS genre. Considering the success of the first one, and the amount of resources Blizzard has, i would hope the developers would shoot for the latter rather then the former.
That's just my opinion.
I'd agree that its not likely to be an earthshattering RTS game. I'm not sure if thats what everyone wants anyways. I'd be very happy with an upgraded StarCraft with new graphics, new units and possible strategy combinations, and more refinement of some of the old things that bugged me rather than something absolutely ground breaking. I think Supreme Commander is meant to be the more earth shattering RTS game...not sure if it is but that seemed to be the direction they were going. I think we can expect allot of refinement, allot of style, an epic storyline, multiplayer matchup technology that is the envy of all of the other RTS games and a fair bit of class in SC2. But I don't think they were going with earth shattering...
So this is probably a good thing :)
-
I don't want earthshattering, I want a good Starcraft title, in much the same way I neither wanted nor got earthshattering out of C&C3: I got a good C&C title. So there.
-
They didn't change anything with the units...battlecruisers still fire ONE measly laser and are tiny..
Blizzard vcould learn a thing or two from C&C3.. a little thing called MULTIPLE WEAPONS/TURRETS...sheesh...
The only screenshot I've seen of a battlecruiser is this (http://us.media.blizzard.com/starcraft2/images/screenshots/ss3-hires.jpg) one and none of them is firing.
Where have you seen it in action? :blah:
-
I've never so much as played a minute of any of Blizzard's games, but even I'm excited about this. South Korea is partyin' tonight. :D
-
MAXIMUM WOOTAGE!!!
-
The only screenshot I've seen of a battlecruiser is this (http://us.media.blizzard.com/starcraft2/images/screenshots/ss3-hires.jpg) one and none of them is firing.
Where have you seen it in action? :blah:
There's a couple of them in this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sog2k6s7xVQ).
-
I've never so much as played a minute of any of Blizzard's games...
Wish I could trade places with you on that one.
I've not been impressed by any of the Blizzard games that I've played, though I will say that StarCraft probably could have been a good experience, if I had picked up on it earlier. Instead, I only bought it after playing other RTS games that had picked up the StarCraft formula and refined it into something much greater than their progenitor. I really spoiled myself by trying to work backwards through the evolution of the genre.
If Blizzard isn't making any effort to update StarCraft's gameplay for the sequel, I think that even the people squeeling like boyband groupies are going to be disappointed when they shell out $50.00 for a game that looks new and feels a decade past its use-by date. On the other hand, if they fine-tune the gameplay, so that it plays like newer games in the RTS genre while maintaining the classic atmosphere of StarCraft, they'll have another hit on their hands.
Either way, I'm probably not buying it. I've gambled on hype about Blizzard's games and lost too many times for me to try it again.
-
I've never even played a single Blizzard game that I know of. I spent most of my early years playing games the people around me had never even heard about.
(Ermmm, I only know WarCraft and StarCraft though. Sorry. (http://209.85.12.236/5024/118/emo/bangwall.gif))
-
I dunno. I would've liked to play Starcraft: Ghost (assuming it would've made it to PC platform) or even "World of Starcraft" (probably announced within 3 years after SC2 anyway) because I feel that playing one character in a well built universe is so much more rewarding than the classic RTS types. The classic RTS genre lacks the personal feeling where you try to manage a whole army instead of one character.
I still liked the original SC and BW though, too bad it was almost always about rushing. That's the bane of all RTS', just build a mass of cheap units and storm the enemy. Game over. Supreme Commander did well to negate rushing thanks to great defenses, but a good rush will still bring down any defense.
-
I still liked the original SC and BW though, too bad it was almost always about rushing. That's the bane of all RTS', just build a mass of cheap units and storm the enemy. Game over. Supreme Commander did well to negate rushing thanks to great defenses, but a good rush will still bring down any defense.
It would do well for you to add the letters "I", "M" and "O" somewhere in there...
-
i have just watched the video with the battle cruisers and its firing lasers pretty rapid from different points from the front at different targets which is different from the original which was just on blast every few seconds. Also one of the videos has one of the blizzard reps saying that it is a work in progress and it isn't the final version.
Anyway i don't want a groundbreaking idea's in starcraft, i like the way the original played, fun, easy to learn and lots of fun to play, i still play it to day, i would like the same as that with the an epic storyline like the first game, but with ingame cutsences as well, but most of all i really can't wait for the rendered cutsences because blizzards are just so beautifull.
-
I still liked the original SC and BW though, too bad it was almost always about rushing. That's the bane of all RTS', just build a mass of cheap units and storm the enemy. Game over. Supreme Commander did well to negate rushing thanks to great defenses, but a good rush will still bring down any defense.
It would do well for you to add the letters "I", "M" and "O" somewhere in there...
Who else's ****ing opinion is it going to be?
Anyway, the sad thing about this is that they don't even have to make a good game to make a hefty - and I mean hefty - profit, let alone make StarCraft 2 'groundbreaking' in any sense of the word. The cold, hard truth is that they'll most likely play it safe and make 'StarCraft for the 00's', changing as little from the original as possible and in essence a giant expansion pack. To hell with the notion of taking a risk to try something innovative or original, why do that when you can rehash the original and the drooling masses won't even care.
I'm not sure what's sadder: That StarCraft 2 will most likely be ****e, or that i'm going to pre-order it the first chance I get. :sigh:
-
I dunno. I would've liked to play Starcraft: Ghost (assuming it would've made it to PC platform) or even "World of Starcraft" (probably announced within 3 years after SC2 anyway) because I feel that playing one character in a well built universe is so much more rewarding than the classic RTS types. The classic RTS genre lacks the personal feeling where you try to manage a whole army instead of one character.
The universe of War3 and SC are not what I woudl call well-built.. Actually MMO's suffer from very shallow interaction with the overal stroy of hte smae universe. You basily go around killing a kazillion respawning enemies, dig/farm for resources to craft itmes that allways end up crap, with an ocasional raid on a big boss.. repeat ad infinitum. I was dissaponted wiht WOW to be honest.
The only MMO that stepped a BIT away from this is LOTRO - it has special quests that feel like you're playing a singleplayer RPG and not a MMO (atmosphereic quests and special areas wiht animations and stuff like that :) Very nicely done, but you still spend most of hte time running around farming to get that Silver dagger (which is 10 times more powerfull as a bronze greatsword ??? Ya.... all MMO's suffer from this ludicorus way of lvl/item progression)
-
im happy that they decided not to change the gameplay. turning it into an mmo would be the ultimate sacrilege. starcraft is the only blizzard game that i liked. had they raped it like warcraft by making it a subscription mmorpg that is what amounts to a mouse clicking contest as all mmorpgs inevitably become, i woulda boycotted them. the mmorpg is why there are very few skill based games on the market. the technology used is rather intresting, but all the game does is alow a bunch of delusional teens to emerse themselves into a fantasy world so as to avoid interaction with reality. to me thats not what gaming is about. games should be about skill, and you should be judged by your skill, and not by how much time you spend leveling up.
-
games should be about skill, and you should be judged by your skill, and not by how much time you spend leveling up.
But when the grease bags who play 24/7 churn trought two mice a week and whose mouse finger clicks in their sleep becom experts at operating in the games physics enviroment, the newbies might be a little truned off when the die in 0,2 seconds.
-
games should be about skill, and you should be judged by your skill, and not by how much time you spend leveling up.
But when the grease bags who play 24/7 churn trought two mice a week and whose mouse finger clicks in their sleep becom experts at operating in the games physics enviroment, the newbies might be a little truned off when the die in 0,2 seconds.
If the "grease bags" play 24/7, even if it's not determined by dexterity, they will have the advantage of a higher level...
Besides, in games that are determined by skill, the same argument can be used so, what's your point?
-
With levels, it is easy to limit certain kind of interaction between players. Or even temporarily even out the level difference for the duration of the interaction.
With simple skill based system, helpless twats can easily blame the game for being unfair or too difficult because to thrive and advance they would actually have to learn themselves instead of farming little critters on noob island. If word gets out, it can lead to poor sales.
If someone sucks in a skill based system, how easy would it be to assume he also sucks equally in real life because he lacks the dexterity to overcome his keyboard?
And so on, and so on...
At this point I'd like to point out that I agree with nukes assessment in favour of skill based system... In single player. I don't much play multi, so I couldn't care less about the above mentioned problems...
-
This is looking like a typical Blizzard hype game tbh. Then again... thats the only thing they are able to do in the past few years.... And the only game that seemed to be a true step in gaming was Ghost, it got cancelled...
It seems to use a Warcraft 3 engine, which isnt acceptable nowadays: only 2 planes of play (ground, air), maps build in by "squares". The units... well no comments. Those zealots making a random attack move every 5 seconds really crack me up, particularly.
Yah sure it will be true to the original, that doesnt mean they cant do something more about it... which I really dont think they will, based on past experiences with Blizzard.
Its the typical "cool website, nice videos, same old ****" game.
Sometimes I really wonder wth they do to the money they earn in WoW... it certainly isnt to make better games
-
im happy that they decided not to change the gameplay. turning it into an mmo would be the ultimate sacrilege. starcraft is the only blizzard game that i liked. had they raped it like warcraft by making it a subscription mmorpg that is what amounts to a mouse clicking contest as all mmorpgs inevitably become, i woulda boycotted them. the mmorpg is why there are very few skill based games on the market. the technology used is rather intresting, but all the game does is alow a bunch of delusional teens to emerse themselves into a fantasy world so as to avoid interaction with reality. to me thats not what gaming is about. games should be about skill, and you should be judged by your skill, and not by how much time you spend leveling up.
You should try GuildWars then :)
Max level is 20 (which is fairly fast to reach), and after that its all about good team tactics\coordination, player skill, etc. Oh and did I mention no monthly pay?!? :D
-
I don't want earthshattering, I want a good Starcraft title, in much the same way I neither wanted nor got earthshattering out of C&C3: I got a good C&C title. So there.
**** yes. I don't want SC2 to reinvent the RTS genre. I want the orignal fun gameplay of SC, I want a continuation of the story, I want jaw-dropping rendered cutscenes, I want ****ing Zerg rushes !
I'm definietly going to get this.
-
i have just watched the video with the battle cruisers and its firing lasers pretty rapid from different points from the front at different targets which is different from the original which was just on blast every few seconds. Also one of the videos has one of the blizzard reps saying that it is a work in progress and it isn't the final version.
Where? Every video with Battlecruisers I' ve seen features small, colorfull ships that fire EXACTLY as tehy did in SC. One red laser every 1-2 seconds.
I simply can't get over this - animations rock, you see those friggin huge ships hivering over an entire city dealing death, and here tehy can be shot down by a handfull of Hydralisks or guys with rifles...
Seen what battleships are like in C&C3? Seen the alien Mothership? now THAT'S what I'm taking about.
High cost, high build time, HUGE, multiple turrets, a pain to take out :D
-
This is looking like a typical Blizzard hype game tbh. Then again... thats the only thing they are able to do in the past few years.... And the only game that seemed to be a true step in gaming was Ghost, it got cancelled...
It seems to use a Warcraft 3 engine, which isnt acceptable nowadays: only 2 planes of play (ground, air), maps build in by "squares". The units... well no comments. Those zealots making a random attack move every 5 seconds really crack me up, particularly.
Yah sure it will be true to the original, that doesnt mean they cant do something more about it... which I really dont think they will, based on past experiences with Blizzard.
Its the typical "cool website, nice videos, same old ****" game.
Sometimes I really wonder wth they do to the money they earn in WoW... it certainly isnt to make better games
It's not Blizzard's job to take the next step in gaming. It's not what they do - it's not what they ever have done, in their entire history. They take existing concepts and technologies and they refine them, they make them as good and as fun as they can be. That's their forte - balance, playability... fun. That's why the original starcraft is till being actively played (in Korea at least) when it's 10 years old. Actually, that's also why Freespace 2 (similar vintage game) is still being played - both games took existing genres and made them as close to perfect as they could be made. That's what SC2 will be.
I'll be buying it.
-
Starcraft - as bast as it can be? You gotta be kidding me..
-
I'm just waiting to here fanboyist remarks.
-
I'm not exactly big RTS fan... but the first Starcraft still has me hooked. So I am quite excited to see it continuing.
I'd be more put-off if they did change the engine and playstyle drastically from what it was before. If I buy a Starcraft game I want gameplay reminiscient of Starcraft. Not something totally new that I may or may not enjoy.
-
Starcraft - as bast as it can be? You gotta be kidding me..
If by "bast" you mean "best" then yes you could make that argument. StarCraft and WarCraft were pretty much the traditional RTS style of gameplay. Everything is derived from Dune 2 which was pretty revolutionary at the time. WarCraft was pretty much the same thing except with a few enhancements and better graphics. Then War2 which was just more levels of gameplay (ships, air, etc.) and then StarCraft and WarCraft 3 are basically the same as well. In the traditional style of RTS gameplay...which isn't all that common these days...SC2 has a very good chance of executing the whole thing in the most refined or "best" manner possible.
Now for some people "best" may be equated with doing something new as well but they aren't mutually exclusive. Supreme Commander seems to be the newest kid on the block that took RTS and went absolutely massive in scale. Nobody is expecting that from SC2...infact I'm very much expecting more of the same only done better. The key is in expectations and what is being expected.
-
I just want to see what happens. i thought the story was extremely interesting, and i want to see how Kerrigan's character progresses in particular.
also, i want to know how the protoss-zerg hybrid factors in.
-
Maybe the fact that you don't see anything new is a deliberate move by Blizzard to try and provoke publicity by instantly providing a heated debate of what, if anything, has changed? And does it really matter if anything has changed?
-
and there was so ****ing much rejoicing.
-
Hmm, here's hoping we can adjust the resolution higher this time.
-
That comment goes well with your sig. :lol:
-
I would just like to thank you all for bringing this wonderful joyous news to my attention......... ;)
Yay Zerg !
-
It's not Blizzard's job to take the next step in gaming. It's not what they do - it's not what they ever have done, in their entire history. They take existing concepts and technologies and they refine them, they make them as good and as fun as they can be. That's their forte - balance, playability... fun. That's why the original starcraft is till being actively played (in Korea at least) when it's 10 years old. Actually, that's also why Freespace 2 (similar vintage game) is still being played - both games took existing genres and made them as close to perfect as they could be made. That's what SC2 will be.
I'll be buying it.
Ive never said that it should be revolutionary in gameplay terms, quite the contrary. Yes I think they should take the formula that defines Starcraft and refine it.
However, it is not what Im seeing at the moment. You call that refinement?!? As much as I hate to pass myself as "Da Doom Prophet", I can already tell you whats its gonna be:
Starcraft 2 - a Warcraft 3 mod
No really. I have nothing against the gameplay, as I have nothing against the gameplay of C&C (which beats Starcrafts age by far, THAT was the true Dune2 successor).
However, they have NO excuse to deliver a game build in their Ice Age engines. Look at C&C3, Emperor: Battle for Dune, Warhammer 40k: DoW. They all have the same RTS concept as Starcraft. However, in those you can see EVOLUTION (on every front), where in SC2 you can see the same **** they delivered 4 years ago, only with different units. The only thing that MIGHT be worthwile in that game is the story. And then again, we'll see (am I the only one who notices that Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 have exactly the same basic story?!?).
We, the HLP community, a bunch of AMATEURS (atleast to the outside worlds eyes), are doing a much better job at refinement of an existing concept, than those self styled "professionals"...
To be honest, the stupid guy is the consumer, that buys whatever **** they throw at him.
-
Ive never said that it should be revolutionary in gameplay terms, quite the contrary. Yes I think they should take the formula that defines Starcraft and refine it.
However, it is not what Im seeing at the moment. You call that refinement?!? As much as I hate to pass myself as "Da Doom Prophet", I can already tell you whats its gonna be:
Starcraft 2 - a Warcraft 3 mod
No really. I have nothing against the gameplay, as I have nothing against the gameplay of C&C (which beats Starcrafts age by far, THAT was the true Dune2 successor).
However, they have NO excuse to deliver a game build in their Ice Age engines. Look at C&C3, Emperor: Battle for Dune, Warhammer 40k: DoW. They all have the same RTS concept as Starcraft. However, in those you can see EVOLUTION (on every front), where in SC2 you can see the same **** they delivered 4 years ago, only with different units. The only thing that MIGHT be worthwile in that game is the story. And then again, we'll see (am I the only one who notices that Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 have exactly the same basic story?!?).
We, the HLP community, a bunch of AMATEURS (atleast to the outside worlds eyes), are doing a much better job at refinement of an existing concept, than those self styled "professionals"...
To be honest, the stupid guy is the consumer, that buys whatever **** they throw at him.
Hear, hear.. I've seen no refinement on all the gameplay vids I've seen so far. Basicly Starcraft in 3D..no other change/improvment.
-
Wow, guys. So, did you get to play StarCraft 2 already, or something? Because it sure as **** sounds like you did. The game is in PRE-ALPHA. Meaning that this is nowhere near the final product. Hell, all we've seen so far is fifteen minutes worth of Protoss gameplay, where not even all the units and abilities are finalized, let alone shown here. As for the Terran and Zerg, theres even more stuff that we haven't even seen yet. Before you guys pass judgment on something, lets wait until a little more solid evidence shows up.
-
there really hasnt beena any major revolutions in gameplay not in at least the last 8-10 years. all the revolutions have been mainly in graphics. the graphics have been what has been driving down the skill focus in gameplay. fpses have essentially gone unchanged sence doom, but at least it requires some skill to play. graphics is definately responsible for the takeoff of the mmorpg genre. which is about the same gameplay as the old tabletop games. the main focus being to create a fantasy world that young gamers can use as a replacement for a social life. i hope starcraft 2 does something to resurrect skill oriented gameplay, which will lead to evolution on the gameplay front.
-
i hope starcraft 2 does something to resurrect skill oriented gameplay
That would mean that it would be annoying clickfest where player has to be in three places at one micromanaging units and their "special" powers. Like in Company of Heroes or C&C3. I prefer slower tactics/strategic gameplay.
I don't find it encouraging to start a huge map covered with AI with one peon and HQ. Supreme Commander was good for me because of the size of the maps. You had plenty of time to prepare and maneuver. Whereas C&C3 was annoying because of tight maps and laughable weapons range. I don't know why I still like Starcraft though. I'm just going to hope the magic is still there...
But as I said before:
It'll all end in tears, just wait and see...
-
The Prophet has spoken! :lol:
No, seriously... it might change, but from what I've seen on the gameplay vids, the interface looks hte same, the units look the same, their stats look the same, the way they are used looks the same.
-
No, seriously... it might change, but from what I've seen on the gameplay vids, the interface looks the same, the units look the same, their stats look the same, the way they are used looks the same.
Dude. Thats the thing in every early pre-stoneage-alpha version of any game. They'll try to get the engine running somehow first. And then they'll design the interface when they know what features will actually be in the game. Until then they'll just slap something in, in this case they stole the interface from the prequel. The interface and other graphics are not high priority and won't be added in the game until later. They might have artists working on them, but pre-alpha testers do not need eyecandy.
Remember early Freespace gameplay vid? Hud was very basic, full of generic icons and strange glyphs. Remember early Freespace 2 gameplay vid? The hud was basically same as in FS1 with funny weapon names like "sidearm".
EDIT: In related news: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php
:wakka:
-
To further support Prophet's claim, I advice everyone to take a look at the original StarCraft's alpha here (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/features/greatestgames/greatest_screen008.jpg).
-
Concerning new and old stuff. I heard that you can now select more units, some units are able to overcome obstacles so that this could lead to new tactics....I think I will wait and look of SC2 will become a WarCarft II Mod or a true stand alone game.
Graphicwise its a WarCraft III mod but I don't care much as long as its fun and challangeing.
-
For nostalgia's sake, a nice overview of the evolution of the original StarCraft: http://sclegacy.com/features/evolution.php (http://sclegacy.com/features/evolution.php)
-
Wow, guys. So, did you get to play StarCraft 2 already, or something? Because it sure as **** sounds like you did. The game is in PRE-ALPHA. Meaning that this is nowhere near the final product. Hell, all we've seen so far is fifteen minutes worth of Protoss gameplay, where not even all the units and abilities are finalized, let alone shown here. As for the Terran and Zerg, theres even more stuff that we haven't even seen yet. Before you guys pass judgment on something, lets wait until a little more solid evidence shows up.
True, its pre-alpha. On the other hand, first its not like we dont know how blizzard does things already. grafically the game will be subpar, flat out and simple... unless Im missing something and WoW\W3 are still "pre-alpha". Heck those 3d modellers dont even seem to give a **** about decent human proportions (again, go see WoW and W3). What should I expect from them?!?
And second, theres just some things that they wont miraculously change at the end of development. For instance, the chessboard system, where each "hill" on the map is just an extruded square. They wont miraculously change unit interaction (the eyecandy you get of units killing themselves like in DoA), etc. Theres things that have to be set in stone since day one, and thats the kind of things Im talking about. Who the hell still builds terrain with cubes?!? :wtf:
-
I dunno, I can appreciate wanting it to be similar to the older version (heck I still pop in Total Annihilation once and a awhile and take it for a spin) i just think that with the cool unit designs they have and the nature of the battles it would look real nice with a Dawn of War esq format. So you can zoom in and watch the blood splattering action. But hey worst case scenario I can take SC2 as a nostalgia version and wait for the grim swarm violence when DoW II comes out with Tyranids.
-
@ Raven2001:
So you don't think code can be rewritten? Terrain redone? Units redrawn?
You have no patience, do you? You don't wait and see which direction the game grows. You don't want to consider the possibility it might get better as it's worked on. You declare to game to be a complete and utter failure right after you saw first glimpse of the development process. You declare to everyone how crap the game is, because you've seen it, and you didn't like it.
I have little expectations. I give 30 % chance the game will be worthy of its title. But I still give the developers a chance to actually develop the ****ing game before spewing crap over it.
What should I expect from them?!?
You should expect Starcraft 2. Consider for a moment. How unrealistic Starcraft was. Especially Zerg units. But it was fun. So "decent human proportions" don't really even belong in the game. Because it's Starcraft.
-
Code can be re-written yes. But theressomething called design documents, which dictate how the game is going to be. And clearly they dictated that environment is going to be another chessboard. It wouldnt be the least feasable that they would rewritte their terrain code (for example), and then start all over on their map building, balancing, etc. Even on that SC1 Pre-Alpha, you can see that nothing relevant has changed from that point to the final product, in terms of basic RTS engine. Its just how things work. You dont change the chassis of a car when you are already working on its "carnage" (sp?!? sry dunno the word in english... its the metal cover of the car :P ).
Thats the kind of evolution you see from a pre alpha to a final product: a refinement in the clothing, not in the underwear.
And of course, the "great" games that IMO are the past two Blizzard titles (and I dont mean gameplay wise), wont help me have much faith that things will be really great... Companies dont change how they work overnight.
Also, you can be damn right that decent human proportions belong to the game. If you dont want to take my word for granted,. watch all of Blizzards cinematics... there you indeed have humans. In the games themselves you have some aberrations with overgrown feet and hands... not to mention squarish (particularly in WoW, not so noticeable in a RTS, but still an issue). And textures?! lol no comment on those.
Note that im pessimistic, true enough, but it is for a reason: I see Blizzards titles from a certain point onward, and I truly begin to wonder how a good company weent so downhill so fast in their game development.
EDIT: fixing the caps because it sounded agressive, and Derek Smrat... not my intent :P
-
I just wish it had a darker look rather than cartoony. And given how WoW looks, that's probably not going to change in the final version.
-
Raven, something that I think you are missing here about peoples reaction to the game is this. It's a return to one of the best (and in a lot of peoples opinion, the absolute best) singleplayer campaigns out there. Say what you will with how the game looks and plays, but one thing where Blizzard always stands strong is in their story telling. You can argue all you want on how a game looks and plays, but in the case of StarCraft, if there is one element that matters the most it's the story line. We've been waiting almost a decade to see what happens with Raynor, Kerrigan, and Zeratul and now we get that chance. Thats why a lot of people are happy about this game.
-
Blizzard is re-hashing the same old story..
Compare War3 and SC:
Good hero becomes bad hero - Karrigan, Arthas
The now bad hero kills good guys - (Luther, Phoenix, Duke, etc..)
Teh now bad hero becomes big threat - Kerrigan beomes the Boord queen, Arthas the Lich King
the good faction must unite with a old and powerfull faction to fight off ANOTHER threat (Alliance+Dark elves vs. Demons, Terrnan+Protoss vs. Overmind)
The good turned bad hero remains aliv and a threat for possible sequels....
-
A well done rehashed storyline is better than a crappy new one :P
-
A well done rehashed storyline is better than a crappy new one :P
QFT.
Who cares if it's rehashed? If it's well done it's still a good story.
-
Wow....this is certainly super-news, always liked Starcraft ! :yes:
Makes me want to "excavate" SC1 & Brood war from the depths of my "bottomless box"
Can't wait this one really....
-
Blizzard is re-hashing the same old story..
Cliches become cliches because, on some level, they work.
-
But usually you take somone elses story elements to copy...not your own over and over again. :rolleyes:
-
Raven, something that I think you are missing here about peoples reaction to the game is this. It's a return to one of the best (and in a lot of peoples opinion, the absolute best) singleplayer campaigns out there. Say what you will with how the game looks and plays, but one thing where Blizzard always stands strong is in their story telling. You can argue all you want on how a game looks and plays, but in the case of StarCraft, if there is one element that matters the most it's the story line. We've been waiting almost a decade to see what happens with Raynor, Kerrigan, and Zeratul and now we get that chance. Thats why a lot of people are happy about this game.
And something that I think you are missing is that I can still voice my opinion at will, and bash at Blizzard how much I like and think they deserve.
Also, if the masses bow down and lick Blizzards middles, even if they do subpar games, it certainly doesnt mean I will.
Ive been waiting almost a decade to know what will happen to Raynor, Kerrigan and their granny. That however doesnt mean I have to play a subpar game to find out. Id rather read a starcraft wikki, thanks... and ill certainly will in the faint hope that the story will be something new.
But of course, theres also the big possibility that the future of the SC is unveiled already in WoW (will be new for me nonetheless though, dont play WoW) :rolleyes:
Saying Blizzard is strong in their storytelling.... well Trashman said all that there was to be said about their current storytelling habilities....
And hell, one thing is cliche (which is fine to an extent), another is having LOTR where Gandalf is named Jack, Sauron is named Kheila, oh and elves are called martians and use machine guns instead of bows...
-
This is a company that cancelled a game that was near 100% completion because they didn't think it was good enough.
-
What game was that?
-
Starcraft Ghost.
And no they cancelled it because the company making it (cant remember the name) wasnt in the mood to take any kind of crap from them. They wanted to make a better game than Blizzard can do atm
-
I think Mr. Vega was referring to Warcraft Adventures. I'm not sure how far along Starcraft Ghost was in development, but I think it's quite possible it shares the same fate. What a shame. After I got over the initial nerd rage of Blizzard making a game for consoles, I was really looking forward to playing it.
-
Well, I dunno about that one, in fact never heard of it before (then again, damn glad I didnt :P )
-
Yep that'd be WarCraft Adventures. Apparently it just wasn't good enough and it was canned. Pretty controversial. But I guess when you're already very well established and you play by your own rules it works out.
-
I saw this on the Blizzard website and Battle.Net website on May 19th.
ya, StarCraft 2 is supposed to bring back the original StarCraft: BroodWar ladder.
For those of you who play StarCraft and have played in March 2007 or before, you know what I mean by Ladder.
-
A new RTS has been announced by Blizzard. They're one of the few developers I trust to make a completely awesome game, the fact that it's a continuation of Starcraft just makes things much better. Can't wait.
-
I don't want to skew off track but as long as Blizzard don't go porting anything to console a'la C&C3 on xbox. I'll be happy.
-
Starcraft Ghost.
And no they cancelled it because the company making it (cant remember the name) wasnt in the mood to take any kind of crap from them. They wanted to make a better game than Blizzard can do atm
Come on, Ghost was ****ty and they were write to cancel it, and the company whose name you don't remember (me neither) would certainly not concel their own game just because Blizzard pissed them off, get real. You don't shoot yourself because your employer *****es at you, do you? :doubt:.
And yeah, Starcraft Adventure was canned for the same reason and, well, from what I remember from it, it was a good call too.
Never been a fan of Starcraft ( I prefer Warcraft, though the way they're heading to does not please me, with these crappy sci-fi draenei and the whole "the burning legion are like Halo's Covenant, friggin' demon-looking aliens, and the Light (supposedly a religion to start with) is the same, some goddamn aliens. I miss the Warcraft 1 mood...), but the game looks fun, so I'm looking forward to it (plus I'm big on pretty cutscenes, so I don't care if the game is so-so, which is rarely the case with Blizzard anyway -if you except their tendancy to make stupidely hard extensions for their games - gah, Beyond the Dark Portal ><).
-
WEll, run a search about SC Ghost, you will see that it was cancelled because the company doing it and Blizzard had some misunderstandings... obviously the company doing it couldnt continue because Blizzard is the IPs owner.
Oh and for the record, that was the second company that was having a go at Ghost (the first one had some probs as well... cant remember the whole story).
From this, I can only assume that the probs those companies had with Ghost, were of the same nature that those dudes at Flagship studios and Arenanet had beforel.
And ghost was not ****ty, atleast from what we could see: seemed like a Splinter Cell meets Unreal sortoff, which was a cool thing IMO (or on the very least, kindof new)... also, the graphics\art were well more "advanced" than from the crap you see on Blizzards current games, which are a bunch of boxes thrown toghether, painted with the fill bucket tool (exageration, but you get the point :P ). You may not like the style of the game (or not game in this situation :P ), but it wasnt being badly done.
Call me eyecandy lover all you want. But nowadays, atleast for me, I think its both inexcusable for a company with Blizzards resources to deliver games with crappy graphics, no matter how the gameplay is. Note that I feel the same when a game has super-graphics, but ****ty gameplay.
-
WEll does anione have any real idea as to when the game will be released. Cuz if they plan on releasing it by 2009 then we have a long way to go before we game our greedy little hands on it and blast the hell out of the zerg and protos or terrans and zerg.
-
WEll, run a search about SC Ghost, you will see that it was cancelled because the company doing it and Blizzard had some misunderstandings... obviously the company doing it couldnt continue because Blizzard is the IPs owner.
Oh and for the record, that was the second company that was having a go at Ghost (the first one had some probs as well... cant remember the whole story).
From this, I can only assume that the probs those companies had with Ghost, were of the same nature that those dudes at Flagship studios and Arenanet had beforel.
And ghost was not ****ty, atleast from what we could see: seemed like a Splinter Cell meets Unreal sortoff, which was a cool thing IMO (or on the very least, kindof new)... also, the graphics\art were well more "advanced" than from the crap you see on Blizzards current games, which are a bunch of boxes thrown toghether, painted with the fill bucket tool (exageration, but you get the point :P ). You may not like the style of the game (or not game in this situation :P ), but it wasnt being badly done.
Call me eyecandy lover all you want. But nowadays, atleast for me, I think its both inexcusable for a company with Blizzards resources to deliver games with crappy graphics, no matter how the gameplay is. Note that I feel the same when a game has super-graphics, but ****ty gameplay.
Mmmh, not gonna comment on the rest, I don't see things as you do, which is fair enough, but regarding the visuals, honestly... all the ingame videos of ghost I've seen really looked "2000", not state of the art graphics (heck, it reeks of Renegade - the Westwood game - excepted it was to be a couple years late), and, on the other hand, these videos from starcraft2 on youtube do look kickass to me. I am the first one to agree that WoW visuals are subpar ( which is odd, there's a couple trully impressive places in there, like that core chamber where you choose the different instances in Blackrock, with the huge rock hold by huge chains over lava, the lighting and all make it look awesome), if you compair it to, say, Lineage2 (which looks better AND runs better, shame on Blizz'), it quite franckly looks bad (even more so since I don't like the visual theme they chose, that cartoonish look of theirs, which totally hurts compared to the ubber cutscenes), and yeah, warcraft3 didn't look great (that's an euphemism) either when it was released. I'm also very disapointed by the fact they still don't care about scales in Starcraft2 (these tiny battlecruisers hurt my eyes), but that aside, it really does look good, so I can't understand your gripe regarding that.
As for gameplay... well I'm not much of a fan of RTS ( I like warcraft, but mainly for the fluff -well, up till Burning Crusade ), I prefer straight-to-battle games such as Mark of Chaos, all that resource gathering, unit building stuff is just tedious to me, that's why I didn't play through Dawn of War, which had otherwise kickass combats, so I'm not gonna comment on that, it's Blizzard's turf, I'm not gonna criticize it based on my own tastes.
-
WEll, run a search about SC Ghost, you will see that it was cancelled because the company doing it and Blizzard had some misunderstandings... obviously the company doing it couldnt continue because Blizzard is the IPs owner.
Oh and for the record, that was the second company that was having a go at Ghost (the first one had some probs as well... cant remember the whole story).
From this, I can only assume that the probs those companies had with Ghost, were of the same nature that those dudes at Flagship studios and Arenanet had beforel.
The second studio that was working on SC Ghost was owned by Blizzard for a year before the game was canceled. :wtf:
-
Mmmh, not gonna comment on the rest, I don't see things as you do, which is fair enough, but regarding the visuals, honestly... all the ingame videos of ghost I've seen really looked "2000", not state of the art graphics (heck, it reeks of Renegade - the Westwood game - excepted it was to be a couple years late), and, on the other hand, these videos from starcraft2 on youtube do look kickass to me. I am the first one to agree that WoW visuals are subpar ( which is odd, there's a couple trully impressive places in there, like that core chamber where you choose the different instances in Blackrock, with the huge rock hold by huge chains over lava, the lighting and all make it look awesome), if you compair it to, say, Lineage2 (which looks better AND runs better, shame on Blizz'), it quite franckly looks bad (even more so since I don't like the visual theme they chose, that cartoonish look of theirs, which totally hurts compared to the ubber cutscenes), and yeah, warcraft3 didn't look great (that's an euphemism) either when it was released. I'm also very disapointed by the fact they still don't care about scales in Starcraft2 (these tiny battlecruisers hurt my eyes), but that aside, it really does look good, so I can't understand your gripe regarding that.
As for gameplay... well I'm not much of a fan of RTS ( I like warcraft, but mainly for the fluff -well, up till Burning Crusade ), I prefer straight-to-battle games such as Mark of Chaos, all that resource gathering, unit building stuff is just tedious to me, that's why I didn't play through Dawn of War, which had otherwise kickass combats, so I'm not gonna comment on that, it's Blizzard's turf, I'm not gonna criticize it based on my own tastes.
Well then there you have it, the Lineage vs WoW thingy just proves what I say. Among another number of things. But that aside all its left is the gameplay, which isnt much different from what you see from some games already (mentioned DoA for that reason, the gameplays of both are very similar, yet DoA looks much better, etc). The gameplay style of resource gathering and all that is not my cup of tea either, but thats not my point in this actually.
My "gripe" regarding SC2 is exactly that. The graphics are sub-par (euphemism too :P ), the gameplay is the same (not a bad thing, but since their not directing their efforts to that department, its only logical they do in others), their maps are extruded cubes (thats the worse of it, my jaw dropped when I saw a Protoss Immortal going through a "hill" like if it wasnt there). And of course, like you mentioned, that cartoonish style is awfull, becoz it doesnt look cartoonish at all :P
Even more, my gripe is that SC is going to be the second Blizzard universe they seem to be going to screw up, due to poor execution in their games. And im fond of their universes.
The second studio that was working on SC Ghost was owned by Blizzard for a year before the game was canceled. :wtf:
My turn to state the obvious?! :P
Of course they were "owned" (more like a direct subsidiary) by Blizzard, for the purpose of developig SC Ghost. Much on the same way that Blizzard North was owned by Blizzard for the purpose of developing the Diablo series, before they disbanded.
Only being there for only 1 year, and then Ghost being cancelled, is a testament that there were misunderstandings.
-
You know Raven... perhaps Blizzard is intentionally aiming for simple game mechanics? Literally Starcraft with new graphics, for nostalgia sake. Or maybe they are just lazy because they have a bazillion koreans ready to pay. Doom3 with "monster closets" was a salute to the classics. It was stupid, but still sold.
Bottom line is that you've made your views clear already. And your cause is a lost one because you sure as hell won't be able to convince the gigazillion koreans about how crap this game will be when it's release in 16+ months.
-
See? You did not get my views pretty clearly :P
I have no problem against simplicity in game mechanics, quite the contrary. I think they are a good formula to get more people playing a certain game, instead of a select few.
But SC2 is not looking, by a long shot, like a "literally Starcraft with new graphics". Those graphics are everything but new, and thats what Im talking about.
Oh and given the nostalgia vs lazy choice you mention, I have no doubts it is the second :P
I dont want to convince anyone. In fact this would be the wrong forum to do so if I wanted... not many koreans here :P
To each their own. However, I know my conscience wont be heavy when the game industry goes even more downhill, due to people who willingly pay for lazy made games.
-
I agree with Raven. Game mechanism should be the utmost priority during a game's development.
-
Nop
Game mechanics, graphics, and all the other factors should be all the utmost priority during a games development. This holds especially true when we are talking about a game house of Blizzards financial status
-
...I must have an entirely different definition of "good graphics" than a lot of people, because those gameplay videos I was watching left my jaw practically on the floor. If those constitute "bad graphics," I'd hate to see what's considered "good."
-
Rather low poly, simple textures...the animated heads look great of course... Still, C&C3 beats this hands down.
But I'll reserve my final statement for the actual game release...
-
...I must have an entirely different definition of "good graphics" than a lot of people, because those gameplay videos I was watching left my jaw practically on the floor. If those constitute "bad graphics," I'd hate to see what's considered "good."
Well all you have to do then, in order to get atleast my definition of good graphics, is take a peek at other RTSs (in order to maintain a certain degree of whats fair to ask), like Down of War, C&C3, Company of Heroes, etc
Im sure you will notice a big different as far as textures, models, map building, lightning, effects, etc is concerned :)
-
I just wish they had gone with a dark, grungy, and evil look instead of a warcraft3-esque cartoony style. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
Games like this don't bring the gaming industry down, MMOs like WoW do. Companys can only compete with the bank that Blizzard makes off just that by selling out to another huge conglomerate (EA). Someday every game might require monthly payments. :doubt:
-
i have just watched the 20 min gameplay vid, and i thought the graphics were good, better than war3. Alright they are not as detailed as company of heroes or world in conflict but i will say this at least the terrain is better detailed the Supreme Commanders(now if i said that at the SC forums they would shoot me dead, they seem to hate starcraft from what i have read on the forums). Now i do love the black hole effect for the protoss mothership and the Protoss head animations. As long as the game is well balanced and fun to play i am not that bothered if the graphics are at crysis level or not and why is every one saying that it looks cartoony? i don't think it does
-
I just wish they had gone with a dark, grungy, and evil look instead of a warcraft3-esque cartoony style. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
Games like this don't bring the gaming industry down, MMOs like WoW do. Companys can only compete with the bank that Blizzard makes off just that by selling out to another huge conglomerate (EA). Someday every game might require monthly payments. :doubt:
True true and true :)
Just one thing though... do you think that Blizzard is much different than EA nowadays?
-
The second studio that was working on SC Ghost was owned by Blizzard for a year before the game was canceled. :wtf:
My turn to state the obvious?! :P
Of course they were "owned" (more like a direct subsidiary) by Blizzard, for the purpose of developig SC Ghost. Much on the same way that Blizzard North was owned by Blizzard for the purpose of developing the Diablo series, before they disbanded.
Only being there for only 1 year, and then Ghost being cancelled, is a testament that there were misunderstandings.
How's that obvious?
Hell, how does that logically follow?
-
Oops, bad typing from my part, forgot a paragraph to divide both sentences, as they were in no way related :)
-
I think I've become less picky on the graphics front. SC2 looks great. C&C3 looks great. I could probably spend allot of time and pick apart the graphical differences and the stylistic differences but both seem to be extremely sharp looking. From the gameplay video it sounds like Blizzard has allot of work cut out for them in balancing the various abilities but it seems like its well in hand.
I do like the dynamics where you have units across all spectrums that have different abilities that fit into the overall army. C&C didn't use to do this very well although C&C3 does it the best I've seen in the series where some low level units are still useful and probably even necessary in the late game. I like how you have a unit in SC2 like the Warp Ray which is a great counter against other large units the enemy deploys (Battlecruisers, Siege Tanks, whatever else big) but is not as good against small cheap units because it takes a bit of time for the damage to build up. So you really have to have a diverse set of units going in to deal with all tiers of an enemies army.
I'll stop rambling now :)
-
Well then there you have it, the Lineage vs WoW thingy just proves what I say. Among another number of things. But that aside all its left is the gameplay, which isnt much different from what you see from some games already (mentioned DoA for that reason, the gameplays of both are very similar, yet DoA looks much better, etc). The gameplay style of resource gathering and all that is not my cup of tea either, but thats not my point in this actually.
My "gripe" regarding SC2 is exactly that. The graphics are sub-par (euphemism too :P ), the gameplay is the same (not a bad thing, but since their not directing their efforts to that department, its only logical they do in others), their maps are extruded cubes (thats the worse of it, my jaw dropped when I saw a Protoss Immortal going through a "hill" like if it wasnt there). And of course, like you mentioned, that cartoonish style is awfull, becoz it doesnt look cartoonish at all :P
Even more, my gripe is that SC is going to be the second Blizzard universe they seem to be going to screw up, due to poor execution in their games. And im fond of their universes.
mmh, you're twisting my words, I was talking about warcraft, not Starcraft. Besides the scaling choices (that I hate), there's nothing cartoonish about SC at all (where did you get that? :/)
As for the "cubic" maps... hell, man, we've seen ONE map, one URBAN map, might I add, and there you go throwing that around as one major flaw of the game? Heck you've played warcraft3, you know they use a mix of smooth hills and abrupt breaks like that.
And, on a last note, that Lineage2 comment is truc against WoW, but it's also true against most games anyway (DOA? wazat?).
Anyway, the hardest I look at the screenshots and the youtube videos to see how exactly it looks subpar, the more I think you're not talking about Starcraft2...
-
Wasnt my intent to "twist your words". Just perceived your argument a diferent way than you meant.
Im talking about Blizzard titles in the last few years, not only a game in particular.
And ill keep my opinion: SC2 is looking cartoonish to me: all those bright colours, almost plain textures, etc. And their looking sub-par to me when I compare them to other titles, sorry.
By the way you mentioned SC: Ghost had crappy graphics before. Ive just been trough IGN to take a peek and see if my memory was blasted... heck those were decent (not groundbreaking, I dont need that anyways) graphics for 2001\2002. The models were well done, the textures actually had some character to them, the lightning was dramatic, etc. Especially in the XBox screens (for obvious reasons). And you could see those traits even in the earlier shots.
Do you see any of that in what we have from SC2 thus far (which is more than one urban map)? I dont. And I certainly didnt see it in Warcraft3 or WoW.
EDIT: about the terrain. yes you had smooth hills in W3, as you had abrupt terrain. Did that abrupt terrain look right? I dont think so. It looked like an extrusion of the terrain instead of actual terrain. And I see the same in the videos and screens we have from SC2 :\
-
You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...
-
You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...
Apparently, so is Blizzard :D
-
You're repeating yourself. And that's just boring...
Aparently its because people keep debating about what I contested, so Im more than happy to re-explain what I think?
You dont like it?!? Dont read, plain and simple... And before you come whining that Im being agressive and blah blah, take a look at your post...
-
Wasnt my intent to "twist your words". Just perceived your argument a diferent way than you meant.
Just a remark, not a criticism.
By the way you mentioned SC: Ghost had crappy graphics before. Ive just been trough IGN to take a peek and see if my memory was blasted... heck those were decent (not groundbreaking, I dont need that anyways) graphics for 2001\2002. The models were well done, the textures actually had some character to them, the lightning was dramatic, etc. Especially in the XBox screens (for obvious reasons). And you could see those traits even in the earlier shots.
Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late :p
Do you see any of that in what we have from SC2 thus far (which is more than one urban map)? I dont. And I certainly didnt see it in Warcraft3 or WoW.
Actually I do, but heh ;)
EDIT: about the terrain. yes you had smooth hills in W3, as you had abrupt terrain. Did that abrupt terrain look right? I dont think so. It looked like an extrusion of the terrain instead of actual terrain. And I see the same in the videos and screens we have from SC2 :\
Well, yup, I think it looked right. Every godamn game got super smooth terrains and hills and mountains that flow nicely from the ground. Last time I checked (and I get to check it often in the region I live), lands are tored apart by countless extrusions, the moutains don't go out of the ground like sheets pulled up, cliffs have no rounded edges, and so on. I don't mean Warcraft is impressive of realism in that regard, but nope, I don't think it's a bad thing. People kind of forget real landscapes are not made out of a nice wireframe with square polygons.
Well anyway, I made my point, so I'll leave it to that. Just wanted to voice my opinion, you're by all mean entitled to yours, I just tried to understand your point of view (I assume I failed tho, but it won't change my life so I can live with it ;) )
-
Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late :p
Wasn't Ghost supposed to come out the same time as Jedi Knight II? I remember being stoked because JKII, Imperium Galactica, and Breed? were going to be released around the same time. Well 1 out of four, course Nexus ended up being enjoyable so i won't hold that against them
-
Yeah, exactly, thanks for proving my point: ghost was announced in 2002, to be released eventually for 2005. Get my point? It was crappy, it was old school, it was 3, even 4 years late :p
Nope, you didnt get mine :P
In 2002 the graphics were good. In 2005 they wouldnt be that good unless some new technology implementation would make its way trough.
But of course theres also this. Originally it was meant to be released for late 2002\early 2003, which would make the graphics still look good at its original release (even if you throw in the usual "things get done late" to a mid 2003).
It was the innumerous setbacks that made it go as far as 2005\06... and by the way, I would be talking crap about SC Ghost as well if by 2005 they wouldnt have improved those grafics (assuming a release of course). So yeah in these situation I would more than agree with you :)
On the other hand, I dont see the grafics being presented in SC2 as being good in 2006\2007.
Well, yup, I think it looked right. Every godamn game got super smooth terrains and hills and mountains that flow nicely from the ground. Last time I checked (and I get to check it often in the region I live), lands are tored apart by countless extrusions, the moutains don't go out of the ground like sheets pulled up, cliffs have no rounded edges, and so on. I don't mean Warcraft is impressive of realism in that regard, but nope, I don't think it's a bad thing. People kind of forget real landscapes are not made out of a nice wireframe with square polygons.
Well anyway, I made my point, so I'll leave it to that. Just wanted to voice my opinion, you're by all mean entitled to yours, I just tried to understand your point of view (I assume I failed tho, but it won't change my life so I can live with it ;) )
Nop didnt look right because no terrain has those extrusions as repetitive and as angular (as seen from above) as you see in Warcraft or those SC2 shots. I might have worded myself before
You have those extrusions everywhere true (and they are represented in most games, but their not that "mathematic" as you see in W3.
-
Unfortunately it seems that things such as Supreme Commander's zoom and queues won't be in Starcraft 2 because they are not "conducive to competitive play."
Overall, "cyber athletics" is used as an excuse for piss-poor design in Command and Conquer 3, and lack of innovation in SC2.
SC2 will be polished though, just sadly not pushing the envelope or even moving along with the rest of the genre.
-
Unfortunately it seems that things such as Supreme Commander's zoom and queues won't be in Starcraft 2 because they are not "conducive to competitive play."
Overall, "cyber athletics" is used as an excuse for piss-poor design in Command and Conquer 3, and lack of innovation in SC2.
SC2 will be polished though, just sadly not pushing the envelope or even moving along with the rest of the genre.
Couldnt agree more, although thats an entirely diferent argument in that field :)
-
Could someone explain to me the logic in directly comparing Command & Conquer 3, completed and released game, and an early build - presumably pre-alpha - version of Starcraft 2? Seriously, what the ****?
Let's not even talk about people complaining about components that will or won't be in the game. Think about it, guys: When WarCraft III was at this stage in its development cycle, they had three races: Ork, Human, and Burning Legion. It doesn't take a genius to just step back and realise it's early ****ing days!
-
Very easy... if they dont want people throwing in what they think from what they see, simply do not release any content other than "hey, were making Starcraft 2) ;)
Take a look at how Fallout is being handled... no-one knows what to expect yet, because there is nothing yet to see (well apart from 3 concept art pieces)
-
btw:
(http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/089/reviews/932394_20060331_screen001.jpg)
World of Starcraft, lol
-
btw:
(http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/089/reviews/932394_20060331_screen001.jpg)
World of Starcraft, lol
hahahahah.
Hmm, am I the only one who would like to see a StarCraft-meets-Diablo kinda game?
-
That'd be bollocks, really. Where's the fun in taking out hordes of daemons with a rapid-firing 8mm hypersonic gauss-rifle?
Oh, wait, taking out hordes of daemons with a rapid-firing 8mm hypersonic gauss-rifle would be ridiculously fun, wouldn't it? And I guess defeating Diablo himself through the use of a tactical nuclear strike would be awesome incarnate. Perhaps taking out Ba'al's pissy little catapults with Siege Tank artillery... Damn, it'd seem you're not alone on this one.
-
I suppose he just meant a diablo-like in the starcraft universe. Well, there's already games like that anyway (the two Crusader, No Remorse and No Regret, for instance, if you want a scifi diablo).
-
Harbinger is clearly the superior sci-fi Diablo.
-
I suppose he just meant a diablo-like in the starcraft universe.
Ah. Yeeeaah. Well, you see...
*Runs*
-
btw:
(http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/089/reviews/932394_20060331_screen001.jpg)
World of Starcraft, lol
Eheh!! That made my day :D
-
I don't care as long as they make the singleplayer story really really awesome.
I still have a faint desire to siegetank and yamoto the crap out of Kerrigan's annoyingly smug face, and if they can coax that enough I'd buy the game even if it was still 2D and had no new units!
As long as they don't try and do anything 'Exciting and Dynamic' or some marketing BS like that, it'll be good.
Be interesting to see how it fares against Dawn of War, which has been our little group's SC replacement for a while now (I mean, those Terran Raptor units are so similar to the Assault Marines in WH40k... then again with most games you can draw all sorts of parallels with other things these days 'eh?).
Biggest downside for me is that they appear to have kept the annoying unit selection limit :(
-
DOW rocks...nothing makes your day like teleporting a squad of termies behind enemy lines :D
-
Edit: I forgot to mention that this is all from one of the copies of the gameplay vid on youtube.
PART 1
- Marines as Jump troopers
- Landing dropships(?)
- NEW: Temporary/portable pylon
PART 2
- Warping in units via Pyons
- NEW: Protoss self-warpers
- Siege tanks with less severe minimum range
- Different pattern of Nydus canal usage
- Green zerglings?
- More durable Zealots(?)
- NEW: Protoss mecha
- NEW: Protoss fighters
PART 3
- NEW: Protoss beam corvettes
- NEW: Protoss Mothership
- NEW: Temporary super shield
- NEW: Protoss Black Hole Weapon
PART 4:
So it'd seem that slight elevation changes have become much less of an issue, at least once someone has upgraded sufficiently. Protoss air power has been altered considerably. They also seem to have gained at least one new unit which is roughly analogous to Terran Jump Troopers.
The temporary pylon ship would let you establish a well-defended Protoss base in a fraction of the time it would normally take, since you could queue up Pylons and other buildings simultaneously, as well as warp in units to defend the base.
According to some Youtube comments the Protoss mothership is overpowered, it seems roughly analogous to a Carrier, but is apparently also a spellcaster.
The Zerg Nydus canals are interesting - they looked scripted, but there were quite a few of them. Maybe just for dramatic effect, but it seems worth noting.
So I find it hard to believe that there's going to be no gameplay changes in Starcraft 2, given that the game isn't even to pre-alpha stage and the Protoss armada has already been redesigned.
-
I wouldn't worry about balance at this stage of development. SC1 certainly wasn't better balanced when it was only half-ready.
-
Wasn't it so that it was said in the very beginning "game not balanced yet" or something on the line?
Their is one unit I miss very much so far...the carrier. I just loved the carrier I have build masses of the them just for the view of a fleet of these ships ^_^
That was if I survied that long...wasn't never realy good.
As from what I saw so far their seems to be some new elements to SC, maybe not to the genre itselft but to SC, that I like. The stuff is mentioned above.
Other thing is that it seams that they will try to keep the balance similar to the old SC where even "tech1" units are later still usefull.
In many games you got units from the early stage of the game that later become useless.
Anyway I am quite interested in anything new about the development. What I have seen looked nice and had some potentional IMO. The graphic is a matter of taste to me. I can life with the current look while I would prefere a more darked and realistic look.
That could be a nice mod if the game would be modable. Replaceing the textures with something different or even just make the overall look a tad darker.
I hope the game will be modable.
-
I still have a faint desire to siegetank and yamoto the crap out of Kerrigan's annoyingly smug face, and if they can coax that enough I'd buy the game even if it was still 2D and had no new units!
As long as they don't try and do anything 'Exciting and Dynamic' or some marketing BS like that, it'll be good.
Agreed.
-
Edit: I forgot to mention that this is all from one of the copies of the gameplay vid on youtube.
PART 1
- Marines as Jump troopers
- Landing dropships(?)
- NEW: Temporary/portable pylon
PART 2
- Warping in units via Pyons
- NEW: Protoss self-warpers
- Siege tanks with less severe minimum range
- Different pattern of Nydus canal usage
- Green zerglings?
- More durable Zealots(?)
- NEW: Protoss mecha
- NEW: Protoss fighters
PART 3
- NEW: Protoss beam corvettes
- NEW: Protoss Mothership
- NEW: Temporary super shield
- NEW: Protoss Black Hole Weapon
PART 4:
So it'd seem that slight elevation changes have become much less of an issue, at least once someone has upgraded sufficiently. Protoss air power has been altered considerably. They also seem to have gained at least one new unit which is roughly analogous to Terran Jump Troopers.
The temporary pylon ship would let you establish a well-defended Protoss base in a fraction of the time it would normally take, since you could queue up Pylons and other buildings simultaneously, as well as warp in units to defend the base.
According to some Youtube comments the Protoss mothership is overpowered, it seems roughly analogous to a Carrier, but is apparently also a spellcaster.
The Zerg Nydus canals are interesting - they looked scripted, but there were quite a few of them. Maybe just for dramatic effect, but it seems worth noting.
So I find it hard to believe that there's going to be no gameplay changes in Starcraft 2, given that the game isn't even to pre-alpha stage and the Protoss armada has already been redesigned.
RE: The Protoss mothership the gameplay video that Blizzard release has the guy talking repeatedly say that the mothership should be out of power right now but for the sake of this demo were going to keep it powered up and that balance changes would be ongoing before release. Its also a one-of on the battlefield so you just have the one which makes it a nice big target if you can bring it down.
-
While the Black Hole Generator is rather impressive, I'd rather have seen a modified Arbiter type ship with that and the time dialation field along with Carriers. Carriers with auto-build and the option of fighters and bombers would have been nice.
-
I agree...I have just recently started playing Starcraft again and the carriers are one of my favorit units.
-
At one time I had a habit of gathering a bunch of carriers on a huge map thick with enemies. And then just "power overwhelming" them all. Just because seeing bases wiped out by carriers was so sweet... :pimp:
-
Battlecruisers < Carriers :nod:
-
unless you fly your a wing of wraiths in to kill all the interceptors, and use your big gun (i forget what its called) to shoot down some of the carriers.
-
unless you fly your a wing of wraiths in to kill all the interceptors, and use your big gun (i forget what its called) to shoot down some of the carriers.
Yamoto Gun, a nuclear explosion focused into a coherent pulse. 12 Battlecruisers w/ Yamoto Gun > 12 Carriers.
-
Lockdown + upgraded Goliaths > Carriers
-
Thats the nice thing about the first Starcraft their wasn't a unit that was overpowered. You could find something against anything...at least that is my experiance and even lower level/tech units where allways still usefull.
-
Thats the nice thing about the first Starcraft their wasn't a unit that was overpowered. You could find something against anything...at least that is my experiance and even lower level/tech units where allways still usefull.
True that. Even a smallish group of Marines could be a serious problem if you had an air unit that couldn't strike back fast enough. My favourite was always the Zealot rush from one side and a mixed force of ground and air units on the other side. The Zealots are just so fast in their upgraded form that the enemy freaks from the rush on one side and the other units mop up.
-
I was allways anoyed by a friend who used his ghosts very effective to stop my heavy hitters or just nuke me...hated it ^_^
I also liked the mariens. With a little upgrade they became a strong part of my forces even in later games because even if their strength was still that of canon fodder they did their fair share of damage.
About the Zealoth...yes their speed is greate and I liked a combination of Zealots with Dragoons or ari as backup.
-
Overpowered...a unit is overpowered if you get far more for your money than by other units.
EXMPLE: Current BC has 500 HP, costs around 400 minerals and 300 gas (IIRC)
A BC with 2000HP that costs the same would be overpowered. However if it costs 1600 minerals and 1200 gas, then it's balanced again...sorta..
Approximately the damage done (per second), HP, cost and time to build should be proportional
-
I'm sure this is really REALLY old news, but i recently bought warcraft three and the frozen throne add-on.
It has Hydralisks and Zerglings, does this mean theres a mini mission somewhere?
-
It also has a terran marine, but the answer is no...those are easter eggs...
-
Well, there is that one Hydralisk in a mission for the Undead Campaign...
-
Thats the nice thing about the first Starcraft their wasn't a unit that was overpowered. You could find something against anything...at least that is my experiance and even lower level/tech units where allways still usefull.
Lol.
I've only ever played Starcraft online once, and I won by building ONLY zerglings (and because I got lucky, okey):
Battle was me (zergs) versus, iirc, a terran and a protoss player. Two goddamn good players too, it seems. It went that way:
Phase 1) At the begining of the battle, I just got all these zerglings, moved them in the middle of the map (the map was like a big cross with each player at one corner), and buried them all there. Then I repeated and repeated that again ( barely three of four times actually, but I still got a lot of them there ).
Phase 2) Ridiculously early (from my point of view, at least, I guess I just suck at base management), the two other players moved toward the center of the map, with, dunno, crazy stuff, carriers and the **** (I was like "how the heck did they get that already?"). Anyway, I assume there was to be some "perfect way" to get a moving army ready soon, coz they both got theirs at the same time.
Phase 3) They meet at the middle (just above my hundred or so poor zerglings ****ting their pants, hoping there's no stealth detector or anything around) and they just battle it out there. I guess I got lucky there, no flying units remained from that little skirmish (and probably not many firebats :p).
Phase 4) when they were about done, I just unburied my zerglings (totally crushing the few survivors still fighting in the process), launched all of them at one base, and all the others I had gathered at my hive during that epic "battle of the center" at the other base.
Phase 5) I probably didn't have enough zerglings to crush them completly in one go (don't remember), but I hit them hard enough so they couldn't recover (I do remember just having a never stopping stream of zerglings moving to both bases at some point, and me just producing more and more of them as they died at the other end w/o even checking the enemy bases, I probably just put the spawn points there - was there one in starcraft?). I remember looooooooooooooooots of zerglings lost their poor lives attacking these bases (they had goddamn strong defenses :/)
Conclusion 1: I won because I sucked at SC and the two others were too good :p
Conclusion 2: I decided it wouldn't work again and I would not bother learning the fine art of " how to build up a strong base and strong army in less than 15 minutes" and just never went on battle.net again.
-
Zergling rush FTW! :yes:
(Well, it wasn't a rush, technically, but still.)
Yeah, I played on Battle.net a few times, but stopped pretty quick. I mean, the games were
A) one of the super-heavily-modded "minigame" type things
B) Money maps
C) Insanely good players
The only decent games were the ones with the veterans playing in them, and I simply do not have the skill to compete with them. :blah:
I did win one hilarious battle against a dude who was playing Starcraft for the first time in his life. :p
I didn't know he was a first-timer, but when I stuck an Observer over his base on saw only a Command Center and five SCV's I knew something was up. :lol:
So I teach him how to build new buildings and research new tech... then the cheeky guy tries to overwhelm me with about 150 Marines. I slaughter them all with about four Dark Templars ( :D), then annihilate his base. 'Twas extremely fun.
-
I remembar playing on a LAN against my teacher and other students. Our teacher was some kind of a pro of Starcraft. Knowing every ****ing stat of each unit. Its weakness and how many seconds it takes to kill what unit with another one.
That was frightning.
We allways played team vs team...the team without the teach got an extra player ^_^
I remeber a game where not much was left of the oposite team...the teach himself and another player and we where 3 left on our side.
We destroyed 3 bases of our teach before we finaly got his last units...completly ignoring the last remaning member of his team.
The other funny game was also LAN with 4 players each side. I played Protos and needed a little bit more time to build up then all the Zerg and Terrans of my team and the other team.
Both teams had build up a quite nice army and where rushing into the middle of the map to see who would survive...except me still building my army. (Shame on me)
I remember as they where both fighting and my team was falling back I finaly got my army ready and was comming to the party. In a matter of seconds the sky was full of small fighters from my carriers and everyone was complaing that it wasn't possible to controle any unit because you could only select the interceptors ^_^
Well the carriers whiped out anything in their path and with the help of some arbiter wheren't even shot at.
Thats why I like the carriers so much ^_^
PS: Ever tried to make a Berserker rush? They might not kill the enemy completly but most likely bomb them back into the stoneage.
-
I always had fun falling back on Siege tanks. Draw the enemy into a fight with some Goliaths and then pull back out of the fight and they would come charging after you and meet your fully deployed Siege tanks head on :)
-
Battlecruisers < Carriers :nod:
In-****ing-deed.
@Icefire: Siege tanks are scary for the poor Zerg.
-
Take it Slow
:lol:
-
Battlecruisers < Carriers :nod:
In-****ing-deed.
@Icefire: Siege tanks are scary for the poor Zerg.
Well, not if they're buried right under the tanks, it seems :p
-
Im sure those mutalisks are very scared of the big bad scary tanks :p
-
But they should be scared of the force of Goliaths that any half-way smart Terran player would escort the Sieges with.
-
Doesnt mean a thing, I always Muta - rush with 30+
-
That would be quite the battle...yeah I don't know if the Goliaths and Siege tanks would be able to counter that effectively without numerical superiority or having a really good defensive position.
-
Actuali in a very good defensive situation the terran siege tanks coupled with goliaths and marines in bunkers can take out anithing any race can throw on them on the ground. Neither the Zerg or the protos can match the terrans in defensive battles. Sure the Protos have the reaver i believe it is called but then again you only have to hit it a few times with you goliaths and they are gone. Man this brings back memories......! The zerg are very adapted at making rush while the protos are best suited for open field combat in prelonged battles because of they superior shields.
-
Im sure those mutalisks are very scared of the big bad scary tanks :p
Marines/Goliath's. 'Sup. :P And missle turrets+Valkyries= pwned.
-
Twenty Marines with stimpacks and six-eight Medics for backup can chew through almost anything in a few seconds.
-
Their is a video from the PCGamer that shows some "new" Protos units. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MBljXxg3M#
Seams like the carrier and some other old friends are back with just a new name.
-
Actuali in a very good defensive situation the terran siege tanks coupled with goliaths and marines in bunkers can take out anithing any race can throw on them on the ground. Neither the Zerg or the protos can match the terrans in defensive battles. Sure the Protos have the reaver i believe it is called but then again you only have to hit it a few times with you goliaths and they are gone. Man this brings back memories......! The zerg are very adapted at making rush while the protos are best suited for open field combat in prelonged battles because of they superior shields.
True that...the Protoss I found were actually good for hit and fade attacks since you could get in and out of battle pretty effectively, deal some damage in the process, and then protect your damaged units until their shields were back up.
-
Their is a video from the PCGamer that shows some "new" Protos units. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MBljXxg3M#
Seams like the carrier and some other old friends are back with just a new name.
I dig the music near the end. :yes:
-
They Have A Demonstration Video For Download At The Web Site, Starcraft2.com.I think the protoss need there own like "SCV" to fix there carriers, scouts, and so on.I also think that the BattleCruiser should look a little bit more like the real one.Same for the Carrier.
-
I also think that the BattleCruiser should look a little bit more like the real one.Same for the Carrier.
What "real one"?
-
Like after you finish a mission.When you see the bc in orbit.
-
Like after you finish a mission.When you see the bc in orbit.
That was in Starcraft. I might be mistaken, but I think this is Starcraft 2. Don't quote me on that, though.
-
I think he means they should look less like a toy. The scale really is a bit ridiculous.
-
I think he means they should look less like a toy. The scale really is a bit ridiculous.
True, but the gameplay would be ridiculous if units were accurately scaled.
StarCraft has prided itself on a cartoonish representation of otherwise realistic (in the frame of sci-fi) units. Hades has made a relevent point in saying the Battlecruiser no longer resembles the realistic interpretation seen in StarCraft, but that point is moot given that this is StarCraft 2, and the realistic design this new Battlecruiser is based upon may have been subject to change.
I do love being anal, don't I?
-
I couldn't say :nervous:
ANyhoo...................
-
I couldn't say :nervous:
ANyhoo...................
Being anal. Being!
-
I think he means they should look less like a toy. The scale really is a bit ridiculous.
True, but the gameplay would be ridiculous if units were accurately scaled.
StarCraft has prided itself on a cartoonish representation of otherwise realistic (in the frame of sci-fi) units. Hades has made a relevent point in saying the Battlecruiser no longer resembles the realistic interpretation seen in StarCraft, but that point is moot given that this is StarCraft 2, and the realistic design this new Battlecruiser is based upon may have been subject to change.
I do love being anal, don't I?
1. There's nothing realistic about the Zerg.
2. If the units were re-scaled than tehy would have to be rebalanced. Thus if you scale the BC or carrier, you'd have to make them far more costly and powerfull...to have less on them on screen. Actually, this ends up more resource conserving than havinh things as tehy are ATM..
-
RE: Xel'Naga, you know your ancient race is **** when you get your ass whuped by the Zerg BEFORE the numerical advantage. ;)
-
RE: Xel'Naga, you know your ancient race is **** when you get your ass whuped by the Zerg BEFORE the numerical advantage. ;)
How do you know how many Zerg died in this war? (or how many Zerg there were at the begining) Maby they barely won...
-
IIRC it is implied in the first game, or outright said, I havent played it in a long time, but The Zerg did beat the Xel'naga, IIRC it was several thousand years before the main Campaigns.
-
The Xel'Naga were overrun by the Zerg before they could figure out what was happening. At least that was the interpretation I got.
-
1. There's nothing realistic about the Zerg.
StarCraft has prided itself on a cartoonish representation of otherwise realistic (in the frame of sci-fi) units.
Realistic in terms of the fictional universe, tool.
The fall of the Xel'Naga:
The pride in their achievements proved to be the fatal downfall of the Xel’Naga. The Overmind, while slowly expanding itself into the void of space, became aware of the mighty Xel’Naga world-ships hovering ominously above the skies of Zerus. The Xel’Naga, having kept a constant watch on the Overmind, were horrified to find that it had actually severed their psychic link, effectively hiding itself from their view. With its need to consume driving its minions into a lustful frenzy, the Overmind launched the now space-faring Zerg swarms at the unsuspecting Xel’Naga. The ancient race did what they could to stem the tide of the ever-advancing Zerg onslaught, but in the end their efforts were in vain. Wave after wave of Zerg swarms hammered the reinforced hulls of the Xel’Naga’s ships with no signs of abatement. Within only a few hours the Zerg overran the defenses of their creators and laid waste to the Xel’Naga fleet.
As the greater whole of the Xel’Naga race was consumed by the raging, genetic whirlwind of the Zerg, the Overmind gained the knowledge and insights of its masters. The Overmind processed thousands of sentient beings into itself, causing it to grow far more powerful than it had ever imagined. It learned the secrets of the sacred Khaydarin Crystals,and began to incorporate the energies of these Crystals into its own. Through the intimate knowledge of evolution and proto-genetic physiology gained from the Xel’Naga, the Overmind was able to increase the level of sentience in many of the higher Zerg strains, while still keeping them fully under its control.
Through dissecting the memories of the Xel’Naga, the Overmind was made aware of the myriad races that had at one time or another been influenced by the ancient race. The Xel’Naga had kept a detailed genetic history of each race, giving the Overmind a clear understanding of their respective strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, the Overmind learned of an exceedingly powerful race that lived near the galaxy’s fringe known only as the Protoss. The Overmind knew then that the Protoss and the Zerg would eventually be caught in an inevitable, apocalyptic conflict.
-
Their is a video from the PCGamer that shows some "new" Protos units. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MBljXxg3M#
Seams like the carrier and some other old friends are back with just a new name.
I don't like the new carrier. Lacks character. And the soul hunters or whaever at the begining are lame, wtf, alien surfers?
-
1. There's nothing realistic about the Zerg.
StarCraft has prided itself on a cartoonish representation of otherwise realistic (in the frame of sci-fi) units.
Realistic in terms of the fictional universe, tool.
I don't follow.
Way I see it, when it comes to Fantasy and (even moreso) Sci-fi you got two possible types of things (when we're talking about made up things like speciaes, technologies and so forth) - things that are "real" within the said universe, but realisticly wouldn't work (energy life forms, organic space ships, teleportation, etc...) and things that fit the universe and might even be possible (singular shields, laser rifles, etc..)
If you refer to 1 that it's OK, Zerg make "sense" within Starcraft universe....(just as Barney or Telletubbies make sense within their own.)
-
I don't follow.
Way I see it, when it comes to Fantasy and (even moreso) Sci-fi you got two possible types of things (when we're talking about made up things like speciaes, technologies and so forth) - things that are "real" within the said universe, but realisticly wouldn't work (energy life forms, organic space ships, teleportation, etc...) and things that fit the universe and might even be possible (singular shields, laser rifles, etc..)
If you refer to 1 that it's OK, Zerg make "sense" within Starcraft universe....(just as Barney or Telletubbies make sense within their own.)
There are intervals in StarCraft where you see an image of a ship, a building, or whatever and it is depicted in a realistic sense as opposed to a cartoonish sense.
For an example of this, think of the cutscene where several marines drop off a nuke aboard a science vessel shortly before getting carved up by Zerg and subsequently exploded to death. The station they're on is massive, much larger than they are, but the science vessel ingame is merely a fraction of the size and far less detailed. Indeed, the version seen ingame is merely a representation of an otherwise realistically imagined object. See where i'm coming from?
It's not realistic in terms of being real, but it is drawn and animated realistically as it would exist in our world if it did indeed exist. That is what i'm talking about when I say the game merely portrays realistic units in a cartoonish fashion, hence complaining about the units ingame not looking realistic is utterly asinine.
-
I think the problem is less that the units don't look realistic and more that the visual style is markedly different from the first game. Starcraft looked quite stark and tended to use a somewhat drab colour palette, which gave it a relatively realistic feel even though the units were technically not realistic at all.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand, with its bright colours and even more misbalanced scale, just looks flat out cartoony.
-
On that, sir, you have a point.
-
They still aren't done yet...so maybe there will be some work with the pallet. They do seem to favour the bright colors these days.
-
what i find amazing is the fact that the terrans found the strenght to not only wage brutal ana huge wars against themselfs but also had the strenght to fight both the protos and the zerg at the same time. Also the Kerrigan unit was something else. I mean if they somehow got a way to fuse zerg and protos abilaties into terrans then .....well.....since of the 3 races the terrans seems to be the most imaginative at waging war there would be nothing that could stop the terrans.
Or if the protos got an active imagination they could do the same.
-
I do agree with Ransom. I wish SC2 didn't look as cartoony... Damn, I'm Spolied by C&C3 :D
-
C&C3 rocks! Gotta love those great unit animations...
-
To be honest, SC2 looks as cartoony in comparison to the original as WC3 looks cartoony in comparison to WC2.
But yes, a darker atmosphere would be better.
-
I just hope they include an awesome editor. I actually bought WC3 just so I could play the custom maps. The campaign I never bothered with, and the online skirmishes were boring after the 5th game. 90% of the games I played on Starcraft were the its custom maps. If Blizzard is keeping its tradition of innovative editors, I'll buy Starcraft 2 just to enjoy the custom maps people will make.
-
C&C3 rocks! Gotta love those great unit animations...
... Indeed. Mammoth Tanks+Railguns =Win. Hey, that'd be cool, GDI vs Terran Dominion...
-
GDI FTW
-
Lots of news coming out in the last few days on the StarCraft front.
New Terran units on the official site, Protoss Carrier is back (Protoss Tempest is out, so is the Soul Hunter), Terran Command Centers have some nifty new upgrades that include mounted cannons and sensors, Terran Thor is a very large powerful unit for the Terrans, tweaks and changes galore and lots of other stuff. Seems like Blizzard is not afraid to keep making changes until they are happy with the units. I rather like the new Banshee (sort of like an attack helicopter) and the Viking is really nifty too.
http://www.starcraft2.com/
http://www.starcraft.org/
-
Nice! Thanks, Icefire. :yes:
-
pretty cool stuff.
-
Yeah its looking cool, i like the quote the viking gives, "Transform and Roll out!" everything seems to be going transformers. I also like the idea that breifings are like scenes form KOTOR, you can go around you ship, interact with members of the crew and take on subplots if you want, They also seem to have darkened it and it dosen't look as cartoony which is all good, i am very much looking forward to this and bioshock
-
I think the problem is less that the units don't look realistic and more that the visual style is markedly different from the first game. Starcraft looked quite stark and tended to use a somewhat drab colour palette, which gave it a relatively realistic feel even though the units were technically not realistic at all.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand, with its bright colours and even more misbalanced scale, just looks flat out cartoony.
Yeah, its going to turn into Warcraft 3.
-
I think the problem is less that the units don't look realistic and more that the visual style is markedly different from the first game. Starcraft looked quite stark and tended to use a somewhat drab colour palette, which gave it a relatively realistic feel even though the units were technically not realistic at all.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand, with its bright colours and even more misbalanced scale, just looks flat out cartoony.
Yeah, its going to turn into Warcraft 3.
Far from it, SC2 is turning out to be a lot "darker" than either WC3 or the first SC, the result will be much different.
-
SC used 256 colors (640x480x8) IIRC, which explains the drabness.
-
SC used 256 colors (640x480x8) IIRC, which explains the drabness.
Yes if they had the Gaming tech we have today, it would have been something like SC2. :P
-
Its the limited color pallet that gave allot of old games a very drab, dark, dreary sort of look to them. Quake 1 was notorious for having a completely drab appearance...some of that was planned and some of that was because it was easier/looked better to do it with a very limited pallet because the video technology just wasn't there.
Now we can do high dynamic range lighting with a full pallet and stuff that was meant to be colorful can be. StarCraft always had a cartoony view to it...it was just more subtle because of the colors. The style itself was still in sort of an overdone version of reality. SC2 is the same style...its just harder to appreciate it immediately. But take one look at a Protoss Carrier in SC1 or a Zerg Hydralisk and tell me that the bright yellows and pink/purples (Protoss and Zerg respectively) were meant to look completely realistic.
For a fast moving RTS...you want to be able to see your units and figure out what each unit is just by having a quick look at it. Obviously some extra colors, a few glowy bits, some blinking lights, or whatever other doodad you can come up with is going to help distinguish which is why most RTS's have units that are exaggerated.
-
Heh, might find this interesting:
Dear Blizzard,
I am a gamer. Contrary to the current stereotype, I am not fat. Nor do I live in a basement, nor with my parents. I do not get an erection when a gaming company releases a screenshot from a cutscene, insinuating that this is what their newest title will be like. I do not fall for false hype - nor do I spend my money, based solely on a game's title. It is important that you understand this because I represent a very large demographic that your marketing department should be aware of: the rational, thinking gamer. While Starcraft 2 is still in production, please take into consideration the following wish list compiled by that very group.
1.) We'd like to be able to install our game and then immediately play it.
We've waited almost a full decade for this. We've just spent $50 that could have easily been relocated to our beer and stripper fund. We've called in sick to work and hired a baby sitter so that we could spend the first full day with it. Please don't make us wait two weeks to play it because you're working on a fix for the Protoss Turd-Launcher to correctly launch turds.
This is a trend in the gaming world that has developed over the past ten years or so, has gotten progressively worse with time, and needs to stop immediately. We're not talking about hardware incompatibility here. We're talking about the basic functionality of the game. We'll use World of Warcraft as an example:
In the beginning, there were boats that took the player from continent to continent. Or rather, they were supposed to. In reality what they did was take a player halfway there and then dump them into the ocean, killing the character and wasting thirty minutes of the players' real lives as they resurrected and then traveled back to the same spot, only to have it happen again. The programmers then replaced those boats with "magical portals" while they fixed the problem. Once it was patched, the portals were removed, and the player could once again ride the all-important ships. Only to have it happen again. This cycle persisted for roughly a year.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/wow-flying.jpg)
Not pictured: Boat.
You have testers. Use them. We're not asking for a perfect game because that's an impossible request. Of course there are going to be minor glitches and blemishes here and there. We just want to make sure that, of the three basics [1.)buy game, 2.) install game, 3.) play game], we can access step three. We have the first two covered.
2.) Is there something we can do to eliminate the kiddies from the game, entirely?
At first, I thought this was just a personal request because I'm getting impatient in my old age. However, the more I speak to my peers, the more I find it's a living, breathing, pulsating, universal hatred held by all respectable gamers. None of the kiddies can type in their native language. None of them can respectfully accept defeat without wielding the word "cheater" or "hacker" like a torch to a mob of brain-eating zombies. And all of them have mastered the art of annoyance to the point of breaking at least five protocols of the Geneva Conventions.
We rational gamers offer a few suggestions, if not solutions, to curb this problem.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/mature.gif)No matter what the rating is for the game, make this the cover art for Starcraft 2. We don't mean "put it down in the corner so that it appears to be a game meant for players age 17 or older." We want it to be the entire cover, encompassing 100% of the box's surface. We do understand that kids still find ways to obtain games like Grand Theft Auto, and we understand that there are certain parents who don't mind their children playing those types of games with those ratings, but at least this way we can weed out the ones who are too stupid to get around the system. Worst case scenario, we've eliminated the absolute stupidest of the stupid.
I personally suggest creating a mandatory registration form that has to be submitted via the internet before online play is accessible. At the bottom of that registration would be a box wherein the potential Battlenet player would be forced to write a minimum of one hundred words, declaring why they want to play the game. When submitted, if the contents of that box contains a single smiley, misspelled word, or any form of "lol," that player would not only be denied access to online play, but be banned from Battlenet for life and his hard drive melted. Sure, that would exclude a small chunk of adults, too, but only the really stupid ones. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Blame them.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/mychemicalromance.jpg)
3.) Give us as few useless units as humanly possible.
We understand that there will be specialized units whose only job it is to take out other specialized units. But please make these at least somewhat versatile. To some people, that's a part of the online excitement: out-planning an opponent... watching him rush 100 Carriers into a base, only to see 100 Carrier-****ers tear open 100 condoms in unison. Just don't put us in too many games of rock, paper, scissors where we pump out 25 to 50 specialized troops and then just have them standing around, hoping that our opponent happened to produce their counterparts. At the very least, let us have the ability to hand them a broom and say, "If you got time to lean, you got time to clean."
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/letter.jpg)
4.) Few if any indoor maps.
We've already heard statements from Blizzard, saying that they will be focusing more on the online aspect of Starcraft 2. They said that there will be a story mode, just as the original had, but the heart and soul of this game will be found through online play. We understand that, and we won't argue. However, remember this: not all of us are online players.
On a personal level, I have no desire to have my ass handed to me and then endure the broken-English mocking of a twelve year old Korean kid. I do not have plans, neither present nor future, of wading through festering cesspools of hackers, scripters, and exploiters who could have easily beaten me legitimately because of my self-admitted jaw-dropping level of suck. Therefore, my focus will be on the offline play.
The bane of my existence was the indoor levels of Starcraft 1. Running through a fog-of-war maze with a handful of troops, looking for the enemies' iPod is not my idea of fun. I did not enjoy fighting my way eastward through the building and hitting a dead end because the door was locked. Then, fighting back to the west until I found a large glowing circle I could stand on... the way doors are opened in the future. Then running back to the east, through the now-opened door to find another large glowing circle.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/starcraft_indoor.jpg)
"****. The bathroom door is locked, Dave. Is there someone in there?"
"No, in order to open it, you'll have to teleport down to Sector 7. Then, make your way east until you come to the prison gates. Open that door and stand on the circle. That opens the gate in Sector 4, where you'll find three more circles in the northern, southern, and eastern wings. Stand on the eastern wing first, and then-"
"Too late. I pooped a little."
5.) Better movement AI on mass units.
This should have been fixed in the first place, and we hope it never needs fixing in this version. In the original game, if a player massed an army of ground troops and sent them into a tight entrance ("bottleneck" or "choke point"), the first of those units would make it through just fine, but clog that entry point. Those that lagged behind would hit the clog, and thinking that it was impassible, they would attempt to find an alternate route into the enemy base. All we're asking for is a little courteousness from the troops.
Is it so hard to make an AI that tells the units to exercise a little patience? We're not asking that to be smartasses. The vast majority of us have never programmed a game, and never will. It just seems that it wouldn't be all that complicated to tell the battalion to walk in a single file line when going through that type of entrance. Or at the very least, give them a line of code that tells them not to travel half the map in the wrong direction just because the troops in front are walking a little too slowly for their taste.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/courteous.jpg)
6.) Take your time. We're in no hurry.
That statement may sting a little for anxious gamers, but those are the people we're thinking of when we say it. We want you, the staff responsible for designing arguably the most anticipated computer game ever produced, to take your time and make sure that what you package is something you're proud of. If it takes a few extra months to put on the finishing touches, the by all means do so. We've been waiting for this game for almost a decade, so you have a lot to live up to.
We are a generation of whining, crying, *****ing, moaning, impatient pussies. No matter what you do, there will be an insufferable barrage of complaints being hammered out by preteens, frothing at the mouth and nitpicking every pixel of every map, just hoping to find something - anything that they can use to feed their insatiable urge to be heard... even if they have nothing to say. It is to be expected because the overwhelming majority of today's gamers are semi-retarded douchebags by nature. Just please - pretty please - don't give them a legitimate reason to do so. It only helps the kiddies justify their flaming idiocy.
(http://www.juvenilecomedy.com/teen_angst.jpg)
He needs just one reason. Any reason at all.
-
The indoor maps complaint has to die.
And he totally missed the move AI getting strung out in a friggin' line like some kind of idiots, so they can get picked off piecemeal. I've never seen the problem he's talking about, but I can say straight up that having a line of 40 marines rather then the 40 of them on-line and all able to fire on a target if one appears.
-
Dear Blizzard,
I am a gamer. Contrary to the current stereotype, I am not fat. Nor do I live in a basement, nor with my parents. I do not get an erection when a gaming company releases a screenshot from a cutscene, insinuating that this is what their newest title will be like. I do not fall for false hype - nor do I spend my money, based solely on a game's title. It is important that you understand this because I represent a very large demographic that your marketing department should be aware of: the rational, thinking gamer. While Starcraft 2 is still in production, please take into consideration the following wish list compiled by that very group.
The moment I got to the second sentence I knew this would be highly entertaining. :lol:
Now, a couple of his concerns were legititmate: it would be nice to have fewer preteens on-line, or not have the AI run all the way around the map (although that could be solved by simply... keeping track of one's own troops), but I don't really know what Blizzard could do about it.
Not that they would take this guy seriously. His ideas on how to stop kids from getting on-line were ludicrous (yes, I know he was not being completely serious). :p
-
Yeah not sure what to do with all of the idiots online :)
No really they bug me too but they are everywhere...games of Battlefield 2 can't be played without dozens of insults and obscenities being spewed forth intermixed with some racially charged comments and oh god its like a cesspool of the lowest IQ people around. WarCraft 3 games are hardly better... once had a game back years ago where the other team lost but someone managed to hack their way with a single unit into a forest somewhere and it took an additional 20 minutes to find the unit (can't happen anymore as you need at least one building before you're revealed) on the large map. These people need to die :)
-
they need to do what you have in the kingdom of loathing, you have to pass a literacy test to use the chat features :D
-
My hopes for Starcraft 2 have just gone up a little, after looking at the Thor and the new upgrade for the Battlecruiser (16 lazers shooting simuntaniusly? Hell YEAH! )
-
...the new upgrade for the Battlecruiser (16 lazers shooting simuntaniusly? Hell YEAH! )
You sure you weren't dreaming?
-
Some latest 700MB large gameplay video, showing a lot of stuff
Teh battelcruisers has a slighty different forward section with several (8 methinks) gun barrels and a red laser (like a shivan beam) came out of EACH barrel...looked sweet.
-
Unless they are multi-tracking, it's just eyecandy.
-
Why dont you link us to this oh so revolutionary video?
-
Have no idea, my roomate showed it to me, but I think something was very wrong with either hte file he downloaded or his PC - the whole video was very slow...like looking someone playing at 5 FPS. :doubt:
-
http://www.starcraft2.com/movies.xml
Gameplay Video - Terran. Its a neat video for sure. Takes you through some of the new and old Terran units and shows off how some of the balance will work.
TrashMan: Your roomates computer might be too slow or not configured properly to play a 720p video. I remember my old AMD 2700+ struggled but my new Core 2 with a 8600GTS works very nicely. On the Battlecruiser, according to the update today, there are two upgrade options for the Battlecruiser (not sure how that works, may be selected per unit) one with the Yamato cannon which is back pretty much unaltered and one with "Plasma Torpedoes" which is the scattered laser effect which doesn't last long but it looks like it lays down some serious hurt over a wide area.
-
Hmph. I'm not impressed.
Sure the battlecruiser took a step in the right direction, but that's it. And stationary air units are so incredibly lame, but it's the way of Starcraft I suppose.
Units have piss poor range and they can't shoot on the move = huge traffic jams that get everyone killed. Disappearing bodies and adamantium terrain and vegetation are an eyesore. If you want to have huge amounts of fire power in a game, at least make it look like it.
What I do like: The graphics are nice, though it remains to be seen if I can enjoy them. So it's a moot point.
And I like Starcraft. But that too remains to be seen when the game is released.
That's all. You understand why I'm concerned?
So far it looks like a Starcraft game made for hardcore Starcraft fans. Extreme rock-paper-scissors, and game mechanics from 1998... Not what I hoped for.
-
Its basically just StarCraft with a few new units and some slightly different game mechanics. Supreme Commander is more of the revolutionary type of RTS with major changes in how RTS is played. SC2 really isn't looking that way. I think Blizzard would face a major backlash if they really changed the game mechanics allot. I'm not sure but I think they are being somewhat conservative with how they are doing it but I think to myself that if I were in their situation I'd be basically doing the same thing. Can you blame them?
-
My problem isn't exactly that the mechanics are from Starcraft. It's that the mechanics are from 1998. Or more to the point the look of the battle, is from 1998. Adding weapon range would make it look more cool. But what I hope they could still do is adding more animation to the little guys. For ****s sake they are standing still and shooting. Or standing still and slashing with something. Little more lively animation would make it look like a real battle. I'm seeing some creative death animations in the videos but other than that, the fighting looks boring.
Weapons fire has very little visible effect on anything, terrain or units, except for the impact sprite.
Other major gripe I have are the air units. Floating still and shooting? As long as I have played RTS I have hated that. Though you are right in that chancing that in to something else would make the koreans rebel or something. Too bad.
The unit scale is cartoony. I could understand it in Starcraft. But in this day and age with this technology, you'd think the scale could be a bit more believeable.
I know Supreme Commander is the king now and I never had any delusions of Starcraft 2 getting anywhere near it. But Age of Empires 3 had more visually appealing fireworks that what I saw in those vids. No. I'm really not looking forward for this.
-
You see, like C&C3, this is not supposed to be a great RTS game. It is supposed a great StarCraft game. You want something different.
-
Well obviously.
-
starcraft is really the only rts game that ive played, and it was good. i dont mind if the gameplay hasnt changed because it was good to begin with. the gameplay for fps games hasnt evolved either but i still enjoy playing new fps games. when it came out freespace hadnt changed much either as far as space sims go, but were all still playing it. so i expect sort of the same form sc2.
-
Hmm... will it have the same feature as Ground Control II? ie, the ability to zoom down to unit level and actually look like you are there with them?
-
Hmm... will it have the same feature as Ground Control II? ie, the ability to zoom down to unit level and actually look like you are there with them?
Go get World in Conflict. It's by the guys who did the GC series. It's a pretty good refinement on what they did previously.
-
from the videos it looks like it does.
-
My problem isn't exactly that the mechanics are from Starcraft. It's that the mechanics are from 1998. Or more to the point the look of the battle, is from 1998. Adding weapon range would make it look more cool. But what I hope they could still do is adding more animation to the little guys. For ****s sake they are standing still and shooting. Or standing still and slashing with something. Little more lively animation would make it look like a real battle. I'm seeing some creative death animations in the videos but other than that, the fighting looks boring.
Weapons fire has very little visible effect on anything, terrain or units, except for the impact sprite.
Other major gripe I have are the air units. Floating still and shooting? As long as I have played RTS I have hated that. Though you are right in that chancing that in to something else would make the koreans rebel or something. Too bad.
The unit scale is cartoony. I could understand it in Starcraft. But in this day and age with this technology, you'd think the scale could be a bit more believeable.
I know Supreme Commander is the king now and I never had any delusions of Starcraft 2 getting anywhere near it. But Age of Empires 3 had more visually appealing fireworks that what I saw in those vids. No. I'm really not looking forward for this.
I can't say I agree. Not on all points...I do think the weapons animation and moving units while attacking and all of that is nice and I don't think we'll be getting that from SC2...C&C3 did that fairly well actually as did C&C Generals but many people seem to hate those games around here so I'm not sure what it will help with.
As for unit scale and range...I don't see those as a big deal. I really don't care if the Marine can fire 4 spaces or 6 spaces or whatever it is...some units like the Siege tank are firing from a long distance and others get right up close and personal. Cartoony scale is a stylistic thing and I'm sure they did it on purpose in the first one and in this one too. Scale is partly a technology thing and also a playability thing but the key is mashing that together in one style. Obviously they have a particular style they want to stick with.
Everyone has their own ideas...if I were making a RTS it'd be allot different than StarCraft is or C&C is and maybe that'd be for the better or for the worse...I don't know. But I do see why they are doing things they way they are doing things. Some changes would add nothing to the series and probably take away from it. Some other changes would be really neat but may not work out nicely for gameplay. For instance I've always wanted to see a fully destructible field of battle and we've gone nowhere on that. Probably for playability reasons...C&C2 had a partially destructible playing field and it ended up being annoying as a large missile or shell would put a divot in the terrain around your base and all that meant was that you couldn't put a building there anymore...wasn't all that great.
So everyone is entitled but I think some things have to make sense or have to fit the style established and there isn't a point in changing the style.
I'd be really interested to see what you would do if you could make your own RTS. What features would you have?
-
Why is everyone given Starcraft 2 a hard time when the game is even out yet?? i have seen on other forums people saying it rubbish etc, how can people say that when they havent played it? i will make my judgement on the game when it is released and have played it for myself, but i will say this Blizzard always make good solid fun games, i have never seen blizzard do a poor game.
-
Why is everyone given Starcraft 2 a hard time when the game is even out yet?? i have seen on other forums people saying it rubbish etc, how can people say that when they havent played it? i will make my judgement on the game when it is released and have played it for myself, but i will say this Blizzard always make good solid fun games, i have never seen blizzard do a poor game.
QFT. Personally, I'll be perfectly happy with good old Starcraft style gameplay. I wouldn't like it too much if everything was changed around so it was unfamilar...
-
Why is everyone given Starcraft 2 a hard time when the game is even out yet?? i have seen on other forums people saying it rubbish etc, how can people say that when they havent played it? i will make my judgement on the game when it is released and have played it for myself, but i will say this Blizzard always make good solid fun games, i have never seen blizzard do a poor game.
QFT. Personally, I'll be perfectly happy with good old Starcraft style gameplay. I wouldn't like it too much if everything was changed around so it was unfamilar...
Basically they are making this sequel for you :)
I think its funny on here some are annoyed that SC2 is going to be pretty much like the original with some minor changes and some of the Battle.net forum people are annoyed because SC2 has some small changes to the gameplay. Its a dichotomy that Blizzard has to deal with in trying to make a game that will appeal to the mass market and change enough stuff to warrant it being a sequel but on the other hand not be so different as to turn off the original massive fan base.
They probably will do just fine...they usually do. It'll be a good solid high quality game with few bugs probably long term support...probably an expansion pack...thats what I see in the future :)
-
As long as they have a good story and plenty of coolies cinematics, i'll be sound as a pound.
-
Well obviously.
So go into a French restaurant and complain they're not serving Thai, basically?
-
you cant make a game for everyone, you have the die hard nostalgia freaks who say dont change anything. then you got the rts gurus looking for the game to include all the evolutions to the genre that have taken place in the last 10 years. you gotta make the game desirable to both. the only thing you can do is aim for the middle, or just make the game you want to make. really id perfer the latter. at this point im gonna get it no matter what way it turns.
-
Must admit i am really really really can't wait to see some of the cinematics in sc2, blizz always do an outstanding job on them, i do think blizzard are trying something new, they way the storyline is told, from what i can gather the terran part of the game when your not in missions is you can go round different parts of the hyperion and interact with the crew and do a few side quests like a RPG and if they can pull that of i think will be reall cool and add a new depth to game, now that is new in my opinion in RTS's and i havent seen any other RTS's do something like that but i may be wrong.
-
They should pull and inverse Tremulous: an RTS with a little bit of FPS thrown in, instead of (like Trem) an FPS with a little bit of RTS thrown in. ;) Go play Trem and see if you can come up with an idea. :D XD
-
Tremulus is unbalanced ATM...aliens are overpowered.
-
Yes, I know... believe me. ;) Supposedly v1.2 is supposed to help fix that... What would help, IMHO, is to give turrets quadruple the current range, quadruple the current rate of fire, and 1/4 the current hit points per shot, and 150% of their current turning rate... or something similar. Gives the little aliens a chance to evade them, but doesn't allow the dretch to dance all around them without getting hit once, and makes it so you can strategically place them, instead of clustering them all around the base. I mean, c'mon, these are turrets!! They aren't crossbows, and even crossbows have more range than the current incarnation of the turrets.
[/end rant]
-
Yes, I know... believe me. ;) Supposedly v1.2 is supposed to help fix that... What would help, IMHO, is to give turrets quadruple the current range, quadruple the current rate of fire, and 1/4 the current hit points per shot, and 150% of their current turning rate... or something similar. Gives the little aliens a chance to evade them, but doesn't allow the dretch to dance all around them without getting hit once, and makes it so you can strategically place them, instead of clustering them all around the base. I mean, c'mon, these are turrets!! They aren't crossbows, and even crossbows have more range than the current incarnation of the turrets.
[/end rant]
Not to mention that the human weapons really aren't powerfull at all. 7 Mass driver shots in the head of a Dragon and it's still merrily pouncing on me????
-
If the server or your ping is over 100, you have to adjust accordingly.... and, the Mass Driver has different aiming spots depending on the distance involved.... if you notice, there is a tiny dot (actually a small dash) on the top of the reticle, in the center. This is used for extremely long range. (shoot the wall from across the map to see).
_
\ /
O
|
-
If the server or your ping is over 100, you have to adjust accordingly.... and, the Mass Driver has different aiming spots depending on the distance involved.... if you notice, there is a tiny dot (actually a small dash) on the top of the reticle, in the center. This is used for extremely long range. (shoot the wall from across the map to see).
_
\ /
O
|
All shot were scored at close range and I didn't have a high ping.. :blah:
-
Perhaps the Goon had uber-huge ping and unlagged was on?
-
Necro?
On starcraft2.com there's a new video about the zerg... not a gameplay demo tho; combo of a tad of cinematic and a bunch of in-game quality stuff
It shows some interesting stuff; my curiosity has been piqued by the scene with the flying things and the battlecruiser (it changes to purple for some reason)
Your thoughts, people?
-
The Zerg units are infesting the Battlecruiser with some kind of special ability. Turing it against yourself for a short time...at least that is what I read.
Still it wasn't sure if they keep this or not...as most of the stuff.
The Zerg are interesting so far. There is a Video at Gametrailers IIRC and I think I read an article about the Zerg at Gamestar.de
-
The Zerg are the best thing ever. (Outside of the FreeSpace uni:v:erse of course) they always have, shall and will be my ideal evolutionary goal. *sigh Kerrigan sigh*
-
*chuckle* Yeah, that's what bliz thought back when they were called tyranids.
-
Only hive tyrants are worth my time and admiration. ;)
-
Only hive tyrants are worth my time and admiration. ;)
What a coincidence! Wiping out hive tyrants is worth my time and admiration too.
:D
If there's a place both Zergs and Nids are equal is beneath the thread of my Baneblade.
-
Nukes > Zerg
Virus Bombs > Tyranids
Coincidence? I think not. :P
-
i never liked nukes, for them to me useful id need to send 2. and zerg units can be replaced fairly quickly. they are also useless agains any smart opponent who has semi-descent sensor coverage.
-
semi-descent .
Descent on Starcraft?
:D
And I agree about the nukes, to be usefull you have to send 2, most buildings can survive one withouth much problem.
Virus Bombs > Tyranids
I've always wondered, shouldnt the terrans try to make a virus-bomb to wipe out the zergs?
-
Protoss FTW :)
I really like the new Protoss units and how nicely they cover the different requirements you'd need to fight an enemy. The new Warp Ray has to be one of my favourites with its incrementally increasing firepower against large targets. I can see using Warp Rays as a kind of hunter killer against big enemy assets.
-
I always did like the Protoss a lot. Zerg not so much. (Except for the Hydralisk :P )
-
i never liked nukes, for them to me useful id need to send 2. and zerg units can be replaced fairly quickly. they are also useless agains any smart opponent who has semi-descent sensor coverage.
I was the kind of fiend who'd hit you with four or five in a salvo. Two on opposite sides to hit the defenses so you don't know where to rush your units to and then two more for critical targets.
-
There is a saying in StarCraft multiplayer that goes something like "if you've got money (and time) to waste on nukes, you're doing something wrong".
Of course that's just a corolary of the following "if you've got money to waste on anything, you're doing something wrong." :p
-
Perhaps pros say that who can detect and kill your Ghosts without much trouble.
-
Well, one should always strive to do everything like a pro. :D
-
Well, one should always strive to do everything like a pro. :D
I think the pro games are boring. Lots of them I've seen feature a couple of units microed to hell. I'd rather have a colossal battle :)
Its not necessarily better...but it makes me happy.
-
Combat drop! A bunch of High Templar and Shuttles loaded with Reavers. Duplicate the shuttles and park the duplicates over the other guy's AD while you drop the Reavers. :P
Mass carnage ensues. For slightly better survivablity, try with Zealots.
Pros are predictable. Be an amateur instead, you win more often.
-
Terrans FTW.
Inpenetrable Bunker filled with Marines with U-238 Shells and 3 Armor/3Weapons wall with Arclite Artillery Cannon support and Battlecruisers even FTW-er.
-
last time my sister and brother-in-law were in town we would play lan games. my sisters tactic was always the usual battlecriusers and missile turrets. i usually took her out with zerglings.
my brother in law is equally matched and usually goes protoss. his fleet is typically 2 arbiters and 10 carriers. i perfer 12 with 2 arbiters and 2 observers. i keep a few scouts nearby to assist if they come under air attack. i tend to be better at keeping my units alive so im usually decisive in fleet vs fleet battles.
im probibly best with the zerg. hydralisks are one of the best light units in the game. i use zerglings only when theyre fully upgraded twards the end to rapidly clean up buildings. sending them a couple dozen zerglings every couple minutes usually can take down a base after the 3rd wave. you have to tell them to attack buildings and ignore units. 12 zerglings can take a building or two out before a unit like a battle cruiser can kill them all. if the enemy has a large base with only perimeter defenses this works really well. id the defensis are within the base then thats another story and id come in with a guardian/scourge attack instead.
-
Protoss FTW :)
I really like the new Protoss units and how nicely they cover the different requirements you'd need to fight an enemy. The new Warp Ray has to be one of my favourites with its incrementally increasing firepower against large targets. I can see using Warp Rays as a kind of hunter killer against big enemy assets.
The Protoss in SC1 were always very vulnerable to swarm strategies (much more so than their Terran counter parts). Most of their units had explosive damage and so against small and midsize units only did half to 3/4 damage respectively. Except for the Reaver and the Templar's psi-storm (neither or which are cheap) they really had nothing to counter it. It's nice to see that flaw corrected in SC2 to show off just how powerful the Protoss really are.
-
...The Protoss in SC1 were always very vulnerable to swarm strategies...
The question is if you can do your Zergling rush before your Protoss opponent makes his first two or three Zealots.
-
Just saw the cinematic demo of the Reaper? (jump trooper) getting ready.
Me likey v much......... :nod: :pimp:
-
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/taurenmarine.xml
Its a good April Fools joke :)
-
Yes, and a non-panic-inducing one at that.
-
Why the F U C K are we still getting RickRoll'd?!
-
ColDekker here:
Just seeing if i still post as me, Aaaaaaannd.
I like the Protoss mothership blackhole and timeslow weapon effect, but it looks like the mothership is just tacked on with obligatory shiny super weapons :rolleyes: