Starcraft 2

[Garile]

Lets hope

Starcraft was a pretty dark game (artwise) I feel so cartoony looks really don't suit the sequal in my book. Doesn't mean cartoony is always bad Seperot, but I don't really feel Zelda games ever had a dark feel to it.

[John80sk]

Pretty much how I feel on the matter, starcraft was a very 'grown up' game... seems like they're trying to appeal to broader audiences and such, shooting for the teen rating.  Blizzard usually comes through though, and I hope they do so again.

[Unnamed_Source]

Who here wanted to play Starcraft: Ghost?? Show of hands.. 1, 2..7..38940 ... Yeah, that's everyone..

Cartoon or not, I hope they come out with something this time around.

[Rhok]

what if Starcraft 2 fails to do anything new to for genre?

[ThomPhoenix]

I'll play StarCraft 2 when it comes out and I couldn't care less how it compares to StarCraft 1 graphics wise or gameplay wise. If it's a good game, I'll play it.

But in my book, the best RTS remains Age of Mythology

[Raleigh]

what if Starcraft 2 fails to do anything new to for genre?

Call me pessimistic if you wish, but for me this is not a question, it is a statement. Just look at some things drawn from this interview on the link:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/0550213

I admire many of the great game designers who have pushed the boundaries in gaming (yourself, Will Wright and Peter Molyneux to name a few). However, I can't help but feel that many of today's genres are stale and a lot of new games are mostly repeating past formulas as we see many sequels or derivatives of previous games being released. This appears to be a trend that will continue. Where do you think the future of gaming is headed, and how hard is it to introduce radical new ideas into the industry?

The cost of making games has gone through the roof, so understandably, publishers want to invest in games that are sure to sell...and sequels for successful franchises are safe bets. It's very difficult to convince publishers to invest millions of dollars in a new game idea...it's too risky.

[ThomPhoenix]

How can you draw conclusions about StarCraft 2 and state them to others as facts while you have read nothing but interviews which don't even go about StarCraft 2 themselves?

So yes, I call you pessimistic. Play the game, then talk.

[Raleigh]

It's just something I fear to be possibly true, knowing that, like FPSes, most RTSes follow the same old formula. I am very skeptical on the fact it may bring any innovation to the genre besides fancier, but cartoonish, graphics, what does not necessarily means it will be a bad game.

[Nurahk]

The ability to step up onto walls (Collosus is it?) should add a large amount of depth to the strategy, and that's just one thing.

I'm looking forward to Starcraft 2, to be honest, and I'm usually a pessimist.

[ThomPhoenix]

Yeah, the use of heights is nice. Why did it take them 10 years to find out that units with legs could step over these height-blockades
It's nice that you have to do lots of things yourself too, instead of selecting units, clicking on the other side of the map and letting the AI do the rest. I also like the asymmetrical races.

I'm looking forward. The last two nice RTSes were AoE3 and Supreme Commander. In my eyes AoE3 just missed the things that were good about AoM such as the choosing of gods. Granted, you could choose "politicians" but that didn't reflect into your civilization as much as it did in AoM. Supreme Commander was just too big and complex for me, you can never be good at it if you don't spend 10 hours a day playing it.

[Nurahk]

Supreme Commander was too awesome for life

[John80sk]

I didn't think Supreme Commander was that complicated... but then again, I never really played competitively, just games against friends.

I'm still looking forward to Starcraft 2, but blizzard has dissapointed me over the last few years.  I was hoping to see some terran marines shredded by zerglings, not a bunch of lego men being chased by giant green dodgeballs.

[Induane]

I never quite knew why the original Starcraft and its expansion Brood Wars was so popular, particularly when there were far superior (in at least many ways) to Starcraft.  The graphics were okish, gameplay was based a lot on rushing, the way the civilizations were divided were so obvious that I couldn't hardly even fathom it.  Zerg were great for the initial rush, mid to long term they were no good.  Terran had a better chance of defending a zergling rush early on than the protoss did, and could be very competitive in moderate length games.   Protoss were in for the long haul though.  With the ability to cap population at 600 units when the others could only reach 200 made them essentially an unfairly broken race if they weren't defeated in the first 20 minutes of a game.  In short, you have a rusher, a midranger, and a long ranger as far as civilizations go.  Fairly boring to me. 

Code: [Select]

I "HATE" people who judge a game by cartoony graphics..
Starcrafts cartoony graphics would have been fine if they hadn't been ruined by a lame 8 directional movement system when older games like Total Annihilation had a fully 3d engine.  Sure the camera was fixed but it made the movement of units awesome to watch.  Also, in Starcraft the thing that bugged me most was that the really really powerful units were super slow. 

Truthfully I'm still a huge TA fan. Total Annihilation had a depth of gameplay that Starcraft couldn't match, a far far far wider variety of units, a 3d engine, full damage simulation, wreckage of old units became obstacles ( which was awesome when fighting over a narrow passage as it would become cluttered with junk and impassible by ground troops.  Also, old wreckage could be reclaimed into raw materials to make new units ).  The attention to detail in TA vs Starcraft to me isn't even a worthy comparison.  Starcraft was a well marketed success but there were better games out there.  There is a reason Starcraft missed out to TA for the best rts of all time title.

Hopefully SC2 will be better though.  I've been hankering for a fun RTS game to play, and blizzard tends to make games that work well with W.I.N.E. so here's hoping!

In a side note, if you saw some of the early alpha and beta shots of starcraft, it was hideous. The final product was far far far better.

Here is a nice early alpha shot of SC.  Note its horrible graphics and clone of the TA interface.  In fact, at this stage it looks like a hideous copy of TA

[seperot]

>.>

I always kinda thought TA sucked and blew...


to be fair SC and warcraft is RTS for the people who cant be bothred with 3 tonnes of boring stuff that needs to be learnt... and clearly you must be missing something on starcraft since what other game can claim to be a national sport in a country


korea ftw

[John80sk]

In a side note, if you saw some of the early alpha and beta shots of starcraft, it was hideous. The final product was far far far better.

that makes me feel a little better