PDA

View Full Version : Blizzard reveal StarCraft II


Funko
21-05-2007, 11:28:27
I'm sure you fan boys and girls already know this but:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a58072/blizzard-reveal-starcraft-ii.html

Venom
21-05-2007, 11:44:02
Here's a project just begging for years of delay.

King_Ghidra
21-05-2007, 12:06:16
supposedly been working on it since 2003 already.

i never played the original and hate rtses though so not for me

Venom
21-05-2007, 12:19:25
I wonder how many South Korean gamers this thing will kill when it'd finished.

Funko
21-05-2007, 12:21:24
This announcement is because they've actually released some info and movies etc.

see here:

http://eu.starcraft2.com/

I generally really like RTSes, we had some really good fun on Warcraft III with other CGers, hopefully this'll be similarly entertaining (or more so).
Playing against people you know rather than kids who are practicing 12 hours a day does allow you to actually have a competitive match which is nice.

My main problem with RTSes is there can always be balance issues that mean to win you have to build in the 'best' order every time as fast as you can then click like crazy.

I liked Z Steel Soldiers and the Warhammer 40k games where your income was based on the territory you controlled not resource gathering so from the very start it was a military game. Mining, or even hunting boar in AoE is not the most interesting part of the game. Warcraft III made rushing quite interesting and adding creeps to the maps so you had some combat early also added a lot of depth so fingers crossed.

Funko
21-05-2007, 12:31:32
I had trouble getting the gameplay videos to download

here on youtube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylDyZEUiwBg&mode=related&search=

Venom
21-05-2007, 13:20:19
I like some. I did really like Starcraft, but that was a different period in my life. My interest in RTS' has waned signifigantly.

Funko
21-05-2007, 13:55:57
Very little has been added to the traditional RTS since Starcraft days, a few tweaks here and there. Total War series has added a strategic level and sense of scale, and the graphics are better these days, but the graphical enhancements don't increase your immersion and improve your experience in the same way as a similar improvement does in FPS, MMO, or simulation games I don't think.

TBS has a similar problem. Civ IV is a really great game but it's really not much different to Civ II.

Fistandantilus
21-05-2007, 14:17:08
Starcraft ruled.

I liked the sci-fi genre much more than the fantasy one of WC.

I think I still have a hydralisk miniature buried in somewhere.

JM^3
21-05-2007, 14:34:45
starcraft is still amazing

JM

Wiincent
21-05-2007, 15:46:30
coooool

Fistandantilus
21-05-2007, 17:25:51
MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

Best storyline evah.

Kitsuki
21-05-2007, 17:39:49
My interest in RTS' has waned too, but I love the story and chars of SC, so I am sure I will love it again. :)

Shining1
23-05-2007, 00:50:23
RTS interest has waned because Dawn of War was basically the ONLY good RTS released since AoK came out. Even then, the depth of gameplay in Starcraft still eclipses anything ever released in the rest of the genre - I played it for two years and still felt like a fucking noob half the time.

It's NOT that the genre is inherently bad or outdated somehow. It's that virtually all the recent game design and production talent has been focused on MMOs and FPS titles. Probably with good reason, I mean, most design teams when asked 'Can you make a better Starcraft?' wouldn't be up to it. But ask 'Can you make a better Everquest?' and most people would be willing to give it a shot.

I'm cautiously optimistic. The downside to this announcement is that a lot of the people who made Starcraft the game it was have moved on from Blizzard.

Centara Fugue
24-05-2007, 07:50:58
The graphical improvements in such games as Warcraft III made it so the action was far too busy and it was difficult to find your own units in all the graphical mess. Starcraft's simple graphics won the day on that count for me.

Also, I never got the hang of using small groups with heroes nearly as well as using large groups of hydralisks, zerglings, zealots, or dragoons. I think juiced-up marines worked pretty well, too, but I never was as good with Terran. I'm not sure I was really good with Protoss, either, since I played them like Zerg. And with Zerg, I was good enough to do some damage sometimes, but other times I got beaten down, so go figure.

Kitsuki
24-05-2007, 22:38:19
Protoss were the win, quite simply! :)

Shining1
24-05-2007, 23:12:06
Terran forever.

I loved the Zerg rush and the guardians, but M&Ms + Siege Tanks and Ghosts got really good, and I got addicted to Comsat. Wut R U Bulding lol?

Kitsuki
28-05-2007, 08:19:18
Reavers + dragoons, with some arbiters to throw people all over the place. And then there were carriers...

I like playing terran too, but not fond of the zerg.

Fistandantilus
28-05-2007, 10:10:52
You heathens. Zerg are clearly the superior race.

maroule
29-05-2007, 09:25:04
Originally posted by Funko
Total War series has added a strategic level and sense of scale,

to me TW is no RTS, because the mecanics are very different from the irritating ressource gathering, army building, army fighting that definces the genre. I haven't played RTS since age of empires, I alsways find it too much of a click feast, and too much of a mecanical combination (first 3 villager on food, then wood, then etc.)

maroule
29-05-2007, 09:33:23
That said, I saw the GS presentation on this one, and it looked both good and pretty smartly balanced

Funko
29-05-2007, 09:54:04
I don't think they are going to fundamentally change the initial mechanical click feast like some of the other recent RTSes have though.

Venom
29-05-2007, 13:08:45
I'm sure it's different but all the screen shots and trailers look like Starcraft with new graphics. *yawn*

fp
29-05-2007, 13:11:54
That's probably what the fans want, though.

Funko
29-05-2007, 13:16:01
I think that's exactly what it's going to be, Starcraft with new graphics and a few new units (which will undoubtably ruin the balance, which was StarCraft's main strength...)

Fistandantilus
29-05-2007, 13:48:16
IIRC it took a few patches to balance the original one.
The spawning rate of larvae comes to mind :D

Blizzard have a good record of spending time to balance RTS.

Venom
29-05-2007, 13:49:40
I think I won't bother playing it unless they bring something new to the table.

Fistandantilus
29-05-2007, 13:51:41
Originally posted by maroule
to me TW is no RTS, because the mecanics are very different from the irritating ressource gathering, army building, army fighting that definces the genre. I haven't played RTS since age of empires, I alsways find it too much of a click feast, and too much of a mecanical combination (first 3 villager on food, then wood, then etc.)

I have no doubt it will be micro intensive. Not on the economic part ala AoE where you have zillions of modes to gather food, Blizzard games have always kept that part very simple.

Combat wise though there seems to be lots of activated abilities who can change the outcome of a battle...

Kitsuki
31-05-2007, 00:12:34
Originally posted by Funko
I think that's exactly what it's going to be, Starcraft with new graphics and a few new units (which will undoubtably ruin the balance, which was StarCraft's main strength...)

I don't agree.

I don't think SC was balanced, not until there were a few patches and some revisions out of the way, and then only truly balanced after Broodwars came out.

Blizzard managed to balance WC3 very well too after the first few patches and I have faith that they will be able to do so again.

Whether the game is fresh and/or interesting willbe the challenge. It would seem like they are going to do something to differentiate the mechanics from the WC franchise - for example no heroes/far less micromanagement/more automated abilities/more emphasis on resources.

At the end of the day, as playable as SC still is, it was released a decade ago. By the time SC2 comes out, well, it could be another couple of years down the line.

Venom
01-06-2007, 12:25:25
According to recent news, definitely no SC2 in 2007. No shit Sherlock.

Shining1
05-06-2007, 11:56:33
I could do without having to build all 30 SCVs/probes/drones at the start of the game.

Scouting innovations would be nice too - what wrecked a lot of WC3/Starcraft was the use of map revealer mods that gave the cheating player a massive strategic advantage. Hell, just playing the whole game without any fog of war at all would be a bold, interesting move. I got addicted to Terran because I could beat people I knew just by Comsat stationing their early stuff and building accordingly. (Which, oddly, usually resulted in massed Firebats with Medics. Walking all over someone's zealots is a lot of fun.)

Rush tactics are annoying as hell, right up until the point you become a good players and then they're hilarious. Some troubles there (early defense as terran was a bitch), but also not something you want to remove.

Also setting the game to ONE speed only, ever, would probably help balance. I don't know about what Fist said, WC3 was micro heavy, Starcraft on fastest speed was just a matter of building a few bases and swarming the map with 130 Hydralisks and 10 Guardians. Some units had amazing powers, but they required you to be there to use them, and that was a fatal distraction from resource/base control. At the higher speeds there were literally only about 2-3 people in the whole who could play Terran competitively for a long while. A "realistic" fastest speed for people without 1000 hours drill playing on a half seconds internet lag would be a strong move.