quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Honestly the graphics don't look that much better than Warcraft III's it's just that there will definitely be more units on screen. My old TNT 1 Pentium 3 550 MHZ computer could play Warcraft 3 fine, so I don't think you guys need to worry at all.
are you serious? my 1.8 ghz geforce 2 laptop couldn't do it at all. (but now that I'm on an awesome computer, I may have to give it another shot. I only made it through one campaign because it ran intolerably slowly at the lowest setting.)
Edit: I should install starcraft and play it a little for old times' sake. Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: there are enough Diablo clones as there is.
See, I wouldn't know. And I doubt they'd give me the same pleasure that Diablo did. That game was perfect to me. I was in love with the atmosphere built by the graphics and music, I loved the voice acting and meeting all the various characters, I couldn't get enough of the lore and running around reading what happened in Sanctuary from reading those tombs and talking to people (I read and re-read the manuals to Diablo and Starcraft almost as much as I played the games, the original Diablo manual is right by my side actually, while the game is lost). And I cherish my DVD of those fabulous Diablo II cut scenes. Something about those games just really gave my imagination a lot to chew on.
So yeah, disappointed Blizzard didn't direct their attentions to a third. Though I suppose I'd probably only really be happy if the original Blizzard North team worked on it.
As for what the story could be about, we never really knew what happened to Sanctuary after the Worldstone was shattered.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Near as I can tell they are merely adding some more units, modifying the abilities and look of most if not all the units, and its now in 3d so you can choose the perspective. I fully expect there will be a good deal more than that, but I am pretty sure Blizzard realizes they don't want to fix what isn't broken about SC.
If SC2 looked just like the old SC and was just new single player campaigns, story fleshing, and cinematics, I'd buy it purely for that.
I hope they just create a solid game, and implement tools that will let the mod community go crazy with such an expansive universe full of possibilities.
Also ersomniac is right, if its out Q4 2009 I really would not be surprised.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
No, I mean to say, a sequel with gameplay so drastically different from its predecessor that it doesn't feel like a sequel. Warcraft 3 just didn't hold my attention: I dislike tactical micromanagement. It's a big part of the reason why TA and Supreme Commander are much more interesting to me than Blizzard RTS games.
When SC came out, I played it regularly for 3 years. When TA came out, I played it regularly for 4 years, then off and on until Supreme Commander came out.
Back when War3 came out, I played it off and on for a year, maybe, and most of that was tower mods.
quote:Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Whew.
Anyone else amused that the delays have already started, and the gameplay trailer that was supposed to release today now only says "COMING SOON?"
posted
Well, duh, those have been there since yesterday. I'm talking about the official one from Blizzard's site, which was labeled for release on 5/20/07 yesterday, and now says "COMING SOON."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the idea of less micromanagement in battles and that example of the 4 Pheonixes vs. the 6 Pheonixes was a good idea too. Hopefully the game will be a lot faster paced than Warcraft 3, which while it was exciting in the beginning parts and end parts of the game, was really boring mid-game.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "updated look" seems to me like the exact style from Starcraft 1, but in 3D. Warcraft 3 was a much bigger (and more "cartoony") departure from previous art styles than SC2, IMO.
Count me in as another who is relieved that they'll be moving away from the micromanagement hell that was Warcraft 3's gameplay. I'm more apprehensive about the storyline, which was one of the original Starcraft's greatest strengths. Warcraft 3's story was mediocre at best, a real step down from Blizzard's earlier work. I worry that this is symptomatic of the writing environment at Blizzard as a whole these days... but we'll see.
Here's also hoping that they get the original voice actors back. Few games were as well-cast as the original Starcraft.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I'm more apprehensive about the storyline, which was one of the original Starcraft's greatest strengths. Warcraft 3's story was mediocre at best, a real step down from Blizzard's earlier work. I worry that this is symptomatic of the writing environment at Blizzard as a whole these days... but we'll see.
Other than Diablo 2 and Starcraft, I don't really see that many of Blizzard's games that had a better story than WC3. Maybe you disagree with me on this, but personally I think that this isn't really enough to say that there's a general trend.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Count me in as another who is relieved that they'll be moving away from the micromanagement hell that was Warcraft 3's gameplay.
For me, it was skirmish hell. Armies oozed back and forth endlessly with no real battles occurring until it was all or nothing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's talking about Hellgate: London, which isn't out yet.
I keep forgetting how everyone but me hated War3. It's my favourite RTS, with Myth II a close second. After that it's a toss-up between StarCraft and Homeworld 2.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Warcraft was fun before certain matchups like Night Elf vs. Orc got so abusive that the game no longer became fun. The story was sorta lame too because the game focused too much on Arthas and the expansion pack's story didn't even include Orcs in it.
On a side note I noticed that the terrans look a lot less grittier than in the original. I'm not sure I like it but whatever, as long as the game rocks I'm fine.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually talking about Fate instead of Hellgate, but the concept applies. But now that the lead designer of Fate is working on Mythos for Flagship, I think it's mostly safe to say that Flagship Studios is the semi-official zombie brother of Blizzard North.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think sticking close to the feel of SC1 is a good idea. In the end I believe RTS fans will get a good solid game, even if it does not bring tons of NEW gamers like WOW did (though some will certainly try it out as WOW made such a positive impression.) Blizzard certainly does not need MORE money, they have plenty to play around with.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the mix of old and new. Since they aren't advancing time far past the original game, it makes sense that some original units are still in (and even those show upgrades and tweaks). And remember that the 'speed' of play for SC1 came from cranking those MP games up to 'Fastest'. The trailers are probably at the default speed settings.
I can't find my SC1 disk...No Bnet for me until I find/replace. I want to play!
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starcraft 2: Three syllables that are obviously getting a large portion of the world's gaming community all hot and bothered.
Not me.
There are only three other syllables that could elicit such a response in me: Fallout 3.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
as long as you have the CD key download the game, if you already bought Starcraft its your right to find a replacement, unless you just happen to walk into Bureau En Gros and see the very last Starcraft original for sale at bargain prices and just happen to see another ten gamers seeing it at the very same instant, you start to flex your muscles growl a little to scare off the smaller skinnier ones but it just doesnt scare off enough of them so get twitchy and suddenly you all get the same idea, There can only be ONE person here to get the game so you all charge madly for the crate with the game inside crashing into it atfull speed clawing and hitting and biting off all opposition until finally being the last one alive and injured to rejoice at being the top of the pack holding the game up high! And so you calmly strut your way to the cash register and pay the ten $, you pass th cashier the bloodied box, and she goes to swipe in the price but tells you that the blood prevents them from computing the price so they cant sell it and you scream NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Raynor!!!!!!!!!!
And then you wake up all panting and sweaty as if you run 2 miles straight home, and you find yourself clutching the Starcraft box.
So you sigh in relief.
Until you realize you bought a french version of the game
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Starcraft 2: Three syllables that are obviously getting a large portion of the world's gaming community all hot and bothered.
Not me.
There are only three other syllables that could elicit such a response in me: Fallout 3.
Perhaps you missed this link earlier Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
Interplay developed that abomination, and though they also made the first two fallout games and tactics, and those games were way fun, Bethesda owns the rights to any future Fallout game now.
Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think they will treat the franchise right.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoy Oblivion, but dialogue isn't exactly its strong suit. IIRC, the folks at Obsidian -- the stuido formed by Black Isle alumni after Interplay shut Black Isle down -- weren't too happy to hear that Bethesda bought the rights to what they presumably think ought to be their game.
I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be. That was one of the things that made StarCraft hard for me -- lots of units, but a low group limit made them difficult to control. I ran out of control groups pretty often, and that's even with my tendency to use overlapping control groups to make it easier to adjust tactics on the fly. So I'm happy to see what looks like a control group size limit increase, just like I was happy to see the step away from large armies (while keeping the same control group size limit) in War3. Anything that makes my units easier to maneuver is good in my books.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
It's true.
Then there was tactics, a miss for most people. I enjoyed it because I liked Jagged Alliance and Deadly Games.
Fallout 3 will most likely have to be rated mature (and push the envelope at that) for it's current fanbase to accept it. Lots of discussion here.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
Interplay developed that abomination, and though they also made the first two fallout games and tactics, and those games were way fun, Bethesda owns the rights to any future Fallout game now.
Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think they will treat the franchise right.
I don't want an FPRPG for Fallout. It seems like Bethesda can't make anything else. I'd much rather the game system be something like KOTOR or Neverwinter Nights.
As to Interplay making a Fallout game... that's like saying 20th Century Fox made Star Wars.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be.
Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like the idea of being able to control more units than 12. I always found it tedious to have to select a team then action, team then action, team then action when all you wanted to do was to send 36 zealots to attack an opponents base. It makes far more sense to be able to do that with one command.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 777: Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Oh, that's wonderful news. The twelve-unit selection limit was one of Blizzard's silliest interface design choices... it was vaguely understandable in the Warcraft 1 and 2 period, before battles could feature appreciably more than a few squads' worth of units, but choosing to keep the limit for Starcraft and Warcraft 3 was just bizarre. After playing TA, in which you can easily select all of your units and structures and still maintain fine control, the 'craft games have always felt oddly crippled to me.
The other silly interface design choice is Blizzard's refusal to adopt TA's shift-based queueing system, which vastly streamlines unit control and allows the player greater strategic freedom as well as the ability to execute more complex tactics (flanking maneuvers, ordered targeting of multiple enemies, etc). I would be pleasantly shocked if they added this functionality to Starcraft 2, but I really doubt it'll happen. More's the pity.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by 777:
quote:I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be.
Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Yes! Now I can finally send ALL OF MY FOUR HUNDRED ZERGLINGS at you ALL AT ONCE muahahahhaha.
I have determined that in a ground war with some time to setup endless waves of zerglings and hyralisks with the occasional ultralisk always pwns when sent in mass waves.
IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to know what happened to Kerrigan, I want to see the eye candy, and most importantly, I want something to take advantage of the new computer I'm going to get. I haven't decided on whether to buy my own laptop, or to build my own desktop. Laptops are expensive if I was to make it as fast as what I could build in a desktop, but portability would be nice...
I just need to replace my ancient PC so I have a hope of running this game when it hits the shelves after the eternity of waiting that Blizzard has no doubt planned.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Great! That'll be helpful.
I wonder if they'll ever do a WarCraft IV, or if World of WarCraft will take over the franchise and the RTS will be left to StarCraft? I'd like to see a War4 after StarCraft 2 that moves the game further toward the Myth style of tactical gameplay. It would be a good way to differentiate the two series, if they want to maintain them both... especially in light of the fact that the Myth franchise seems to have come to an end.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think the story for War4 can be handled completely through patches in WoW.
What I wanna see after SC2 is an MMO SC, they have now pleased the RTS gamers, now they have to please the MMO players.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes! Now I can finally send ALL OF MY FOUR HUNDRED ZERGLINGS at you ALL AT ONCE muahahahhaha.
I have determined that in a ground war with some time to setup endless waves of zerglings and hyralisks with the occasional ultralisk always pwns when sent in mass waves.
My favorite Zerg strategy on unlimited resource maps is to send a continuous stream of Hydralisks into their base. It requires about 20 Hatcheries to really do right, but it's really fun just to watch the river of hydralisks start flowing on the minimap. They just don't stop Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You gotta mix units in order to be most effective in the game. For example, the simple combo of defilers and zerglings could beat an army of pure hydralisks.
Anyways marines are better than hydralisks. Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: You gotta mix units in order to be most effective in the game. For example, the simple combo of defilers and zerglings could beat an army of pure hydralisks.
Anyways marines are better than hydralisks.
I believe hydralisks have more hit points then marines, and they hit harder too. They can also hit air units.
Now a group of firebats fighting a grp of equal numbered hydralisks at point blank range is just a hydralisk BBQ.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that you mention it BlackBlade, I didn't see any Firebats in the gameplay demo video. It was mostly showcasing protoss units, so maybe I shouldn't assume they've been eliminated from the game. Not that I minded seeing everything from the Protoss point of view, they've always been my favorite race to play.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't stand the Protoss. They're freakin' space elves. And like the Eldar before 'em, and the elves that were their inspiration, they're laaaaame.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
whereas hydro's do have more hitpoints the reason hydro>marine is because of the range.
I hope they change something i cant stand waiting 15 minutes, then everyone throwing their Bc's and Carriers at each other, then whoever lost thier fleet quits game.....
its just annoying.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: In terms of cost-effectiveness, I'm convinced that Hydralisks are the best unit in the game.
<3 Zerg.
In terms of cost effectiveness, this is true. They also have the deserved reputation of being the most effectively massed unit, with their general utility exceeding that of marines and dragoons.
Terran are the best massers, however, as they have effective maximized ground-to-ground utility to combine with the dreaded 3/3 infantry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated how Zerg was always to slowest to get running. Like 99% of the time you needed to build a hatchery before your first spawning pool, and even if you didn't you would still be behind in the early game unit count and if you got rushed it was hard to stop it.
That's why I always played Protoss and just straight up rushed the zerg. Bringing a probe to make a shield battery or two really extended the longevity of your zealots and it was tough for me as a zerg player to counter something like that.
Lol, nothing like StarCraft to bring out the inner-nerd in me. Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
if you do it right, a siege tank counter battery is slower then the onslaught of zerglings and hydras, a constant wave after wave of hydras will always manage to inch its way closer and close until its finally close enough to take out the defences, and usually you just exert just enough pressure for the enemy to be too focused on repairing his defences to the point he cant do anything to counter you.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Warcraft 3 was a much bigger (and more "cartoony") departure from previous art styles than SC2, IMO.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
It's true. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
