[Mefustae]

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.

[TrashMan]

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)

[Nuke]

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.

[Prophet]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Prophet]

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...

[Raven2001]

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

[Raven2001]

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?!?

[Col. Fishguts]

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.

[TrashMan]

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

[Black Wolf]

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.

[TrashMan]

Starcraft - as bast as it can be? You gotta be kidding me..

[achtung]

I'm just waiting to here fanboyist remarks.

[Dark Hunter]

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.

[IceFire]

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... I'm very much expecting more of the same only done better.  The key is in expectations and what is being expected.

[Turambar]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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?

[Turey]

and there was so ****ing much rejoicing.

[Ulala]

Hmm, here's hoping we can adjust the resolution higher this time.

[Prophet]

That comment goes well with your sig.