Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Announces StarCraft 2
We'll be returning once again to the world of StarCraft, it appears, and not in the form of a Massively Multiplayer game. Blizzard has announced StarCraft 2 at their packed event in Seoul, South Korea. IGN is liveblogging the event, describing gameplay footage being played as well as full cinematics. From the description of ongoing events there are massive changes to the way the game plays, new units, a physics system within the game engine, and the capability to show over 100 units onscreen at a time. "Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game - nothing in the game is final." Additional coverage from Milky at 1up.
Excellent, so glad it isn't a StarCraft MMO as rumoured.
What I want to know is, will it have a Heroes model (after Warcraft III) or will it drop back to a more traditional model of RTS (just units). Or will it have an entirely new hook? I hope it follows after Warcraft III's model.
However, the reports of having hundreds of zerglings makes it seem like it might be more of a macro scale RTS.
I only hope that Blizzard won't try to mix&match genres in an attempt to gain wider audience. The fact that in WC3, the game degenerated into Hero rush is what kept me from playing it.
They should look at the original Ground Control for an idea of a good strategy game
And yes, I'm a huge fan of Relic's work.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I was amazed at this announcement but upon closer examination of the screenshots, it looks like it doesn't have anything new over its predecessor. Buildings and units have the same size relation as before, it doesn't seem like you can zoom in/out, very similar units.
It would be disappointing it it didn't have some revolutionary features and a great story.
While I loved Homeworld, I thought the basic element they missed that Starcraft had was that the races should be *different*. There should be at least two, preferably 3 races that are unique yet balanced -- not the same units repackaged with a tweak or two. That and I have a pet peeve about "space" physics that include drag -- yeah, yeah, it made the game playable...
Homeworld was quite well done, especially from a UI / controls standpoint. I also felt it had less of the micromanagement requirement that Starcraft and the like had. I'd love to see something like that but with Starcraft-like variety in the races.
You're the second person who's said that but it's obviously untrue. Blizzard have now announced Starcraft 3, whereas Duke Nukem Forever was announced a long time ago. They've now showed intitial versions of the game, that are subject to change. Duke Nukem Forever did that a long time ago. Neither game has been released.
Or at least, that's what my kids (all have played Starcraft) said when I mentioned this to them, quick to point out that the Starcraft:Ghost project was delayed so many times it eventually died.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm entering "long, pseudo-philosophical rant"-mode here, so caveat lector:
Improving StarCraft is like improving chess - arguably possible, but hardly without upsetting a lot of people. StarCraft is still being played today because as a game, it's one of the most polished and consistent experiences available. It's not truly "real-time", it has little to do with "strategy", it is certainly not trying to be realistic and the graphics suck by today's standard - but that's also true for poker and darts. I feel most of the comments calling for Blizzard to "look to Title X" for new ideas for StarCraft 2 are a little misguided. StarCraft's gameplay is in a class of it's own, people will buy it because it's StarCraft. And they will buy it because StarCraft -even in its current form- is just a damn good game in it's own right. It's just imaginable that, a hundred years from now, people will still enjoy slightly enhanced versions of exactly the same formula, just like we enjoy back gammon thousands of years after its original form was created.
That game looks totally different than the in game video release several years ago........9 6053569246
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-39801657
I fear the Y2038 bug
Get rid of that annoying character (though other expletives are better suited) and perhaps I'll be interested in playing. I really didn't like how Brood War ended.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
While I see some complain that Starcraft2 is just like Starcraft, I rather think that's just one of it's strengths. I would *hate* to have seen a completely 'revised' starcraft where one could hardly see any link with the old game. Let's face it; it may be true that Blizzard is (much like EA) a rather commercial company (well, they all are, but you know what I mean) who mainly goes for established and proven concepts, and doesn't come up with something daring or original - one must acknowledge they hit the spot with Starcraft. It was one of the best games of the genre in its time. Ah, the wee hours I spend on it (including broodwars). I'm not saying it was perfect (there were some missions who were rather tedious and boring), but all in all it was a great game - and even until this day I play it now and then (I bought it again for 6 euro or so last year; a real bargain, since it STILL looks reasonable and remains as enjoyable as when it came out).
So, yes, Blizzard isn't really an innovative company and only bets on sure moneymakers, and their Starcraft2 is much like Starcraft, only with prettier graphics, a new story, new units, new AI and physics...but really, isn't that new enough for something that already was a superb game (and, as Blizzard well knows, a huge succes)? I think *many* more would complain if Blizzard had taken Starcraft into directions that completely deviated from the old game, frankly. Imagine they made a MMOG out of it...that would have been completely awful (just as when Beth would make the next TES game into a MMOG; a big mistake - though in that case, multiplayer for 4-8 friends to play in it would be cool). All in all, Blizzard did well not to tinker too much with the concept of the game itself; a huge fanbase would be more inclined to turn their backs on them if they would be *too* cavalier in changing an already established and loved game.
That said, I would like to see Blizzard and EA try out something really innovative with a new game, though. It's a bit sad such huge companies dare less then other, often far more smaller game-developing corporations. Yeah, I know; going for the easy money is always...well, easier. But I can't imagine the game-devs themselves wouldn't like to tackle and try out something totally new too, even in those companies.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I really appreciate the fact (judging by the visuals) that they have seemingly concentrated on making things aesthetically pleasing, rather than technologically demanding, as so many new games seem to.
This means it should be fairly scalable to lower end PC's. Complete opposite to say Supreme Commander which kills even high-end computers, yet isn't exactly great looking - infact it looks worse than 10 year old TA on anything but the highest settings!.
Blizzard did the same with WC3, which ran nicely on my low end laptop back in the day and still looked nice. Kudos to them for putting gameplay, and true art ahead of 'graphics technology'.
The point about style that you made is probably why everyone remembers Starcraft, while Total Annihilation is practically unknown to most gamers today. While I'm sure most of us can agree that Starcraft was a technically inferior program, it was much more memorable for its style, appearance, and story. Total Annihilation, meanwhile, was a game far ahead of its time, and it got left in the dust because it had zero personality. Total Annihilation's gameplay was and continues to be top-notch, even surpassing Supreme Commander in a few respects. (Namely in unit diversity and pacing.) It had features most RTS games don't have now, and that was ten years ago. The problem is, there was no 'coolness hook' - no real style - to draw you in unless you really, really appreciated the gameplay and the feature-set. In today's world of pretty lights, convoluted storylines, and stylishly dressed feature characters, games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander are just too difficult for most gamers to appreciate.
That's not to say they're both not completely incredible games, which they are. They're just totally square in spite of being so awesome.
Chess is still popular, as are countless board games - all of which are positively 'ancient' - if they have got away without changing the formula, why should video games be any different? If it ain't broke don't fix it. At least video games have the ability to improve visually and evolve story wise with time, justifying fresh builds.
This is simply not true. Games for Linux may be more viable than, say, 5 years ago, but it is no means a trivial endeavor to create a cross-platform game that spans Linux, Mac, and Windows. And the Linux desktop market share is still so small there is very little chance it would be profitable. I doubt the profits would even pay for writing an installer RPM, writing Linux-specific documentation, and manning the Linux support calls.
And the fact that all three OS's have x86 implementations doesn't help as you might think. Sure, you might be able to have sections written in assembly that can run in all three targets, but game developers don't need to muck nearly as much as they used to (CPU's are faster, compilers are *much* improved). On the other hand, API's and middle-ware tools are becoming more and more prominent, and depending on which ones you choose and it can have a bit impact on portability.
On the other hand, the bnetd thing *does* piss me off, and I share your frustration. At the time Bnetd was written, battle.net was a horribly broken mess. Bnetd was less of a vehicle for cheating than it was an workaround for when battle.net was down. Honestly I think that Blizzard was embarrassed at being one-upped by a group of part-time OSS hackers.
It appears the good ole days of the RTS are back. C&C 3, Supreme Commander, and now StarCraft 2. Throw in some very good newcomers like Company of Heros, and it's the best time to be an RTS gamer since the 90's.
The official site is up now too, with screenshots and movies.
(blatant plug: mirrors of the movies available here (Australian mirror))
This is not just a gimmick, it can change a lot the way you think about defenses and choke-points.
There are huge improvements in the armor/damage type that changes the balance a lot. The scale _is_ different, as you'll see that there are hugely more Zerlings and very few Battlecruiser-scale units in a scene, and it _was_ a balanced fight. You can also see at some point a four or five level see-saw when similar sized groups of a certain type of unit were slaughtered by another kind, which in turn were slaughtered by another kind (all groups of about the same size). Which means you have to think very well of tactics, too.
The difference in build strategy is significantly changed by new ways of extending the Protoss psionic matrix, and I'm convinced similar updates to the other races will make them even more different. (It's clear from the videos that the Terran buildings' move ability is used to good effect, there was nothing shown about the Zerg though.)
Granted, these are not huge, fundamental changes. It's probably on the scale of the changes between the Diablo games: nothing fundamental, but it amounts to orders of magnitude in fun and complexity.
And yes, you can zoom and apparently look around things. I for one can't wait to try the "commando" missions inside buildings and huge ships, or the RPG-like missions like the bonus maps for Warcraft III. Maybe even some planetary-scale sterilization from orbit as in the books :D
"I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
Never anticipate any dramatic changes in SC2. The reason is simple: Blizzard has little reasons to take the risk to ruin a well designed game SC1 together with its dedicated Korean players community+tournament. They would benefit more to incrementally improve on SC1 and grow the community rather than redesigning it. Besides, I think SC1's design is on the right track, so incrementally building on it wouldn't be such a bad idea.
I am still cautiously optimistic because the "wow" factor would be relatively low comparing to SC1 yet I am eager to see what changes Blizzard has/can make to the original SC1. Being one of Blizzard's most successful franchise and the 10th anniversary of SC, let's hope they deliver what SC2 deserves and not result in disgrace.
Soon as I saw the announcements I ran to starcraft2.com and read everything as much as I could about the game. You're pretty limited at what you can see, and the only race with a wee bit of info are the Protoss. As someone who got the original the day it came out (best April Fool's day, evar!) I'm been a rabid fan for years. But looking at all the preliminary info I just get this feeling that it's SC1.5 instead of 2. Yeah it made the leap to 3D graphics (whoopty-doo) but there's still only the 3 races, no new Hybrid that I and bunches of others have been expecting. I know this is still really early to make any calls on and looks like another fantastic, awesome Blizz game, just throwing my two cents in. PS. Please Blizz, keep this as a strategy game and don't try a "RPS" or whatever WCIII is.
i should hope that one can pick out a bunker, muta, ling, and marine. there are some units that you just can't do away in starcraft. those are some of them. and its kinda hard to make them look like something else. also if you took a look at the starcraft2 site, they have some info on new toss units up, and the way it looks, is that toss gets a shift in their style. the arbitor teleport is completely upscaled, my favorite unit has a new name, and bigger guns. I admit, my wishes for sc2 are probably diff from some others (keep population cap at 200, if it means lower the graphics, keep the game micro based, keep the 'traditiona' race roles, etc etc), but basing your crtitism on the fact that returning units look like the originals, from early screenshots, which were probably chosen for the fact that they don't too too much, and that also don't show gameplay mechanics, seems like a poor decision.
This is NOT flamebait, this is the sentiment of millions of gamers. I strongly prefer the starcraft style of gameplay to the warcraft 3 style.
I too hope it does not have the heros, they're the reason I grew weary of wc3 in a week instead of the 4 years I played sc.
I'm excited to see Blizzard do something outside of WoW again. There was a lot of skepticism as to whether they would ever do anything else again, since WoW's enough laurels for any company to rest on. Seriously, Blizzard has been the most consistent gaming company in terms of quality, it's nice to see them come back. Hopefully they still have the touch.
With respect to your first point, what makes you think that Blizzard is precluded from developing a SC MMO? It's been fairly common knowledge that they've been hiring on for a "next-gen" MMO and it would seem to follow that a focus on the Starcraft universe at the company for the RTS would be a great segue into an MMO. Storylines, concept artists, writers, and so on could very easily serve as a further foundation for your futuristic MMO.
Perhaps, then, instead of complaining about SC2, you might consider taking heart from the fact that Blizzard has once again turned its eye towards the universe we both appreciate and that your hopes for Worlds of Starcraft have never been closer to fruition. Starcraft players the world over have many reasons to rejoice and I'd encourage you to remember that their gain is not necessarily your loss.
cheers.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I too hope it does not have the heros, they're the reason I grew weary of wc3 in a week instead of the 4 years I played sc.
you only played starcraft for 4 years? I still play it relatively frequently.
I agree with you, though. The more things you have to keep track of and manage, the more difficult the game becomes. It starts to be a chore to play rather than fun. That was the main allure of the SC- it was simple to learn and once you understood the upgrade path, it took a lifetime to master. Broodwars ruined it by adding the extra units further complicating the game. You have to worry about so much more (namely invisible units like the lurkers and the dark templars) earlier in the game.
Heroes are fine, if you don't have to worry about building. That's what I liked about Bungie's Myth games. You didn't have to build anything, you went straight into battle, and if you had a unit that made more kills, he'd get faster and more accurate. It kept gameplay simple, yet dynamic enough to stay fun.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Even the original C&C1 had different units for each side--GDI was about powerful but slower technology while NOD was about stealthier, faster technology. Red Alert 1 separated the sides even further. I think StarCraft was the first RTS game I played that had three races, though.
Oh, man, are we remembering the same game? Hello, Zerg/tank rush.
StarCraft was fun, but it seems the lack of a sequel for the last decade has made people romanticize the game as some unbeatable classic. It was a good game, but I eventually had my fill of it and moved on. The game is very repetitive.
"Sufferin' succotash."
"No, this is lame. Blizzard had the chance to redefine computer gaming by coming out with a truly great, futuristic MMO, but instead decided to do another rehash of a game from nearly ten years ago that looks exactly like the old version."
Umm... so basically you're upset that they rehashed SC2 instead of WoW. I wouldn't mind, but you only used the word 'rehash' once so I got a little confused..
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think Blizzard is looking to revamp Starcraft's game structure or type. Starcraft was always build your base(s) at the right time, upgrade your units at the right time, mass the right units to counter your enemy (that you have checked out at the right time), and manipulate your troops into the right locations to have the upper hand. It was the epic battle on a specific location: the battlefield. There was no multiple-galaxy army building, no economy or taxes or keeping the civilians happy, etc. And that's the feeling that Blizzard wants to keep, with better, smoother graphics, some balance tweaks, new troops to play with for new strategies, and some nice lookin' explosions.
Thus, Starcraft II is incomparable to Total War (with turn-based continental strategy...only some battlefield tactics, which can be skipped) and EVE (an MMO...enough said). There are a lot of types of strategy games, and even the real-time ones have different quirks. There's not enough from the screenshots to tell what these quirks in the new Starcraft may be, so I'd say: play it before you nay it.
Except that it has a physics engine. And the units are almost TOTALLY different. And the graphics are about 10 years newer. Yeah. Other than all that.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.