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.
...welcome our new ZERGLIasddAS24Y6JNGG-G--SAD9ODASIDAS98244128990WQA
NO CARRIER
?giS
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.
Even SC2 beat out Duke Nukem Whenever...
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
A simple WOOt! is in order I believe.
They make me all jangly inside!
KEKEKEKEKE ZERG RUSH!
But Blizzard did in fact beat out Duke Nukem Forever. Now taking bets on Diablo 3.
Seriously, I'm very conflicted about this. Part of me realizes that the original developers are long gone and creating subscription games of a different franchise and genre. The other part of me knows this must have been in the works for a very, very long time, and probably went through many fine-tuning incarnations, and is really looking forward to seeings this released.
On the bright side, either way I'll have a chance this time around to learn to play well before the first wave of popularity dies off.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
The Protoss mother ship (from IGN's Charles Onyett):
3:18 - warprey also very effective against structures - very vulnerable to small unit fire - shws warpreys getting wiped out by terran marines. Physics system lets debris from warpreys roll down a ramp. Showing one more unit - warped in in a serious of cubes - giant floating base - called a protoss mothership - can only have 1 at a time - cost big resources - special abilities include timebomb that slows all enemy missiles inside - shows terran missle launcher shooting in projectiles that stop in the field before they reach the ship - when field ends missiles drop the ground - planet cracker attack - giant lasers stream from ship to ground - ship can be moved around while planet cracker laser is active - the ship looks like a metallic, triangular sand dollar - mothership can create a black hole anywhere it wannts to - creates distortion that actually sucks ships in and destroys them - in the demo the black hole destroyed four terran battle cruisers in about ten seconds.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
....Or was that "My life for Aiur!" I could never tell what those damn zealots were saying.
If Star Trek had the internet: Captain, we've received an IM from the romulans. "Surrender or be destroyed. LOL. o.O"
It will be interesting to see what the Korean telebroadcast community will be doing with this. Considering that for a portion of Korea, this is like the NFL introducing Football 2.0, and then declaring that all original versions of Football are null and void...
You'll be able to have an unlimited number of units (if you have the supplies for them) like you can in Command and Conquer?
Of course then again I love StarCraft for how FAST it plays and how quickly it loads, but I also love CnC for the epic magnitude of some of those "10 minutes no rush" games, which are much bigger in CnC than in StarCraft.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
In other news, the rest of the world released a huge sigh of relief as the Doomsday Clock was turned back. A spokesman for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was quoted as saying "A Starcraft MMO could have ended it all. We may never know how close we came to the complete and utter destruction of society as we know it."
StarCraft is back for more. Will my academic career survive this time?
Ohhh SupCom's great fun. I'm waiting on my friends to upgrade so I can play with them, hehe. Different style of games, I always found SC to be something bordering on tactical with all the micromanagement possible. With SupCom and the large armies you can field, things get more strategic.
Here
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Honestly, Blizzard could learn a lot from Relic (the developer of the games you mention). Relic somewhat quietly revolutionized the RTS seven years ago with Homeworld, only to watch the market quickly return to Warcraft mechanics, with Blizzard capping the return in 2002.
If Starcraft 2's going to be a Warcraft 3 with pylons, so be it; it'll probably sell millions in South Korea, and I don't doubt it will be a fine update of the balancing act that was Starcraft. Without something really new in the way battles are fought, though, I just can't imagine myself being that excited.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
IGN has posted screenshots here.
Looks incredibly cool graphically, though at the moment it looks like the gameplay is exactly the same as StarCraft. I wonder if there'll be some gameplay announcements soon.
AAhhh.... sc2- introducing a whole new generation to dropping out of college. Kekekeke
Intro video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXoekeDIW8 Sweet!
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.
I hope Starcraft 2 will at least stick to the general premise of the original Starcraft and Brood Wars. These were two absolutely incredible games, and I've wasted many hours beating these games.
Let's only hope.
Geeks strike again 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Release date?
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I imagine by now my post might not be read, but here goes.
I have been a fan of Blizzard for years, still am really. I put faith in the quality of their product, but I am concerned with a concept they themselves essentially created.
Custom User Interfaces. With the advent of World of Warcraft, I wonder why it had not been developed before. For those who are not quite following me yet, let me indulge you.
World of Warcraft features an almost 100% customizable User Interface via the use of XML and LUA. The only real restrictions are ones which could possibly cause you to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents. Granted, the "convenience" itself can add an advantage, but Blizzard is more concerned of causing things that were not originally intended to occur, that drastically imbalances the playing field. After using their customizable UI for years, I find myself dependant on such customization.
My concern is, will they impliment a method for customizing their UI to the degree that World of Warcraft saw? I for one would be in favour of such a design. Consider that there are little shortcuts, and little nicities that Warcraft 3 had over Starcraft 1. Things such as pressing tilde to select any idle worker, or pressing the "forward" and "back" buttons on new-er mice to cycle through different types of units. I would be eager to see how much of an impact customizing the UI in a RTS of such calibre would have.
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'
Any Korean speakers out there that can tell us what the text on the screen said, as well as what the man said at the end?
... but I just threw my fist in the air, almost dropped my laptop and grunted like a caveman -- all in an upscale hotel-lobby in Hong Kong. StarCraft 2! Fuck, YEAH! I'm almost 24 now and haven't played anything but a few hours of WoW since I got out of high-school, but this really gets me going in ways I'd rather not elaborate.
Starcraft has the capability of showing 1500 units on screen at once,with some lag(anyone who played evolves maps knows).I suspect it be another Warcraft III with starcraft units.
>>it seems that they decided not to mess with a winning combination
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Seriously, Starcraft is an RTS, and to make it anything else in the main series (As opposed to a spin-off or a side-game)
would be an insult to the millions who play Starcraft.
I am likely going to preorder this anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJB-Z54R61s
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Well if you look at the difference between Diablo and Diablo 2 you will see pretty much the same thing: Slight update in graphics, new classes, items, dungeons, tweaked spell system. Was it some revolutionary improvement upon the original? No. But it was immensely successful.
/MLS
I, for one, welcome our new Zerg overlords.
*whisper: dude, we don't have any overlords*
SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!
Nevermind that the typical SupCom Siege Assault Bot doesn't have such nice lines as READY TO ROLL OUT!
(I'm getting it anyway, since things like futuristic wars and giant enemy cra--I mean, spiders appeal to me. also I liked the demo.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I look at those screenshots and they look exactly like a SC1 battle with better resolution. Seriously, with one or two exceptions you can pick out every unit and its SC1 equivalent in those screenshots. The terran bunkers, the mutalisks, the zerglings, etc.
I know SC1 was an awesome game and they dont want to do anything to mess up the legacy, but come on, its like a decade later, lets do something besides new graphics. I've always been a huge fan of Blizzard, I hope there is more to the new starcraft than what I've seen so far would suggest. Right now it just looks like an expansion pack with a few new units and updated graphics.
I was just looking at the screenshots. Did anyone else think they look like sprite-based graphics rather than polygon? If those are actually polygon based graphics, then they have done some amazing work. If they are sprite-based, then I say, "Great!" It'll be nice to not be looking at something other than the same 'ole polygon graphics.
I hate it how when a new technology comes out that everyone abandons the old. 3D graphics are great, but they aren't perfect for everything. It's kind of like how I would love to see a non-CG animated movie again.
But I digress, could someone tell me what the graphic system is going to be?
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
The last time the following phrase was muttered, the game was send back to the oven and served when done with delicious results. So let me say it loud and proud: Geeze....Warcraft III in space?
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
It's really simple too - take a cue from Pokemon and make units persistent somehow between battles. Not just heros, either, but units should be able to gain experience, have morale, be decimated even if it doesn't technically die, etc. I don't know how exactly to make it fun, but the basic idea seems sound - ie that the army is something you have to take care of and not just send on suicide runs. I'm not talking about that "send a hero unit on a treasure hunt" crap from WC3, either, just sound battle hardened or shell shocked units.
:)
In that vein, permitting people to customize their army somewhat seems like a good idea, too. This would work best with the persistent army, but even if the army isn't persistent allowing people to customize which branches of the tech tree they have access before the game might be a good idea, too. Kind of like how you're locked in to your technological choices before a war even starts.
Having persistent territory or some kind of objective world that this operates in is more questionable.
This would all be a play balancing nightmare, but could be worth the effort if done right.
I have a hard time squaring this with the central element of SC games - resource gathering to build an army up - but whatever. That's what makes brain dumps fun.
If it's the same as Starcraft, why release a new game? I was hoping I'd get a new game, not what amounts to an expansion pack with a 3D graphics engine.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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'.
http://www.starcraft2.com/ now up
Well, a lot of games often come out with incremental sequels with additional characters, vehicles
advance in the story, etc., Yes I am aware that this often is done with PC games through expansion packs,
but From the trailers I've seen, this is looking as more then just an expansion, as they mentioned new units,
new gameplay features (Unspecified as to what those were however) and even a higher ZERG RUSH limit.
Ultimately That's the problem with a successful game: You don't want to piss off those who are used
to a good thing, but you don't want to rehash the same thing to new customers. Its a fine line to walk
and not everyone is going to be satisfied no matter how Starcraft 2 comes out. If someone praises it,
another gamer will bitch about it for, even probably the exact reason the first person liked it.
However, Its too early at this point to decidedly call it just "Starcraft in 3D". I'd wait and
at least see a gameplay video first.
The other thing is, gamers have been clamoring for a sequel for a DECADE. They WANT something new with Starcraft,
even if it, fundamentally, is just an updated graphical version of the core gameplay.
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.
... www.starcraft2.com
"Starcraft in 3d in Directx 9 with particles systems and a few minor tweaks to the gameplay."
I'd buy that for a dollar!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OK, from the vids and screen caps it looks visually stunning. I hope my system can handle it. :-) But it looks like just an engine port of the original Starcraft. OK, more units. Yawn. The rest looks exactly the same, just with lots of polygons. It's still an effectively 2D game.
Granted SC and BW is a really hard act to follow. But I was rather hoping for SC2 to break new ground. I'd love to see something like Homeworld: Cataclysm in the SC universe, with the graphics they're showing off for SC2. That would totally rock.
I guess we'll find out when it's actually released. Of course, given Blizzard's bad citizenship in the past several years, I don't know if I'll even want to buy it. (bnetd, FreeCraft, etc.)
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Why buy Quake 2, what amounts to a expansion pack for quake 1 with a better 3D graphics engine.
Why buy Supreme Commander, what amounts to a expansion pack for TA with a better 3D graphics engine.
Why buy FFXII, what amounts to a expansion pack for FFX with a better 3D graphics engine.
Why buy Halo 3, what amounts to a expansion pack for Halo with a better 3D graphics engine.
Why buy Grand Turismo 4, what amounts to a expansion pack for Grand turismo 2 with a better 3D graphics engine.
Why buy Far cry, what amounts to a expansion pack for Doom 2 with a better 3D graphics engine.
Your argument is weak to silly. Do you honestly think it'll be exactly SC with a new veneer? If you break it all down you are just buying a new story, a new set of graphics, and a new package every time you buy any sequel.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I live in a townhouse with five other guys. There's an extra computer in our living room for when friends come over. For the past month, pretty much every day we've been playing 4-7 player games of the original Starcraft. We'll play a game, then we'll all sit down and watch the replay, talk excitedly about the game for an hour, then play another one again and again.
The reason we play Starcraft instead of the myriad of new RTS games available is because the gameplay mechanics in Starcraft are damn near perfect. Starcraft's greatest strength is how competitive it is; how there is ALWAYS more to learn and more to practice, and how a tournament player can obliterate even a veteran player without breaking a sweat. I think the game's competitiveness would suffer from more realistic gameplay mechanics.
Sorry to say, but you may be in the minority as far as wanting different gameplay goes. We really do want more of the same thing.
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.
i'm starting grad school next semester. i hope to god that sc2 is delayed long enough for me to get my phd.
chillax137
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.
What makes StarCraft I fun has not very much to do with graphics. It's the gameplay rules and balance.
I'm actually concerned that fancy graphics might (a) distract the game designers from concentrating on game rules and balance and/or (b) clutter the screen so that it's hard to quickly asses what's going on when you look at a new region of the map.
I might be wrong but in the art+gameplay trailer on Starcraft 2 I saw some ground units - the spider-looking things - pass from lower ground to higher ground.
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.
Really, is it just me or in deed the music from the gameplay/artwork trailes is a lame variation of the star wars main theme?
it's lame.
the movie or watch it online at starcraft2.com
The official site is up now too, with screenshots and movies.
(blatant plug: mirrors of the movies available here (Australian mirror))
Yep. I've finally switched to Linux full time now. I'm not gonna bother with Windows (or 2nd rate quality with Cedega/Wine for that matter) just for this one game and I imagine there are alot more people in the same position. Either they put out a Linux version or lose customers.
the thing is, it has been about 10 years of wait. A continuation of the great story of SC with some improvements here and there would have been always welcome, since the base SC is so great. But then again 10 years (plus what's left to wait)? for this?
It's also untrue that there are not revolutionary new things to be explored in real-time strategy games. One would be to have artificial-intelligence assistance for various tasks so you don't have to everything yourself (as you have to in SC). For example have generals who would execute plans on your command, respond in certain ways to emergencies/surpise attacks etc. Also, check Supreme Commander for some interesting new features.
Again, more SC is great, but what Blizzard is showing us should have arrived 5 years or so ago.
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."
You know, Starcraft fanboys (not necessarily accusing you of being one) say this all the time, and it's so untrue. Starcraft (which, to be fair, I didn't like in the first place) is not a perfect game. In fact, the only improvement it has over Warcraft 2, gameplay-wise, is differentiation of the sides. It really is just Warcraft in space, no matter how much anyone said it wouldn't be that. And the game does not hold up to newer games, not by a long shot. Newer games have introduced things that were big steps for the genre (resurrectable heroes in War3, squad model in Dawn of War, the resource model used in Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, etc), which Starcraft, no matter how lovingly it is remembered, suffers for not having when compared to those games. Blizzard would be remiss to not include these improvements to RTS gameplay in its new game, fanboys be damned.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Piece of advice - as anyone who has worked in the games industry will tell you, there are many reasons why certain features don't get implemented, or platforms don't get supported, and the reason is almost never laziness.
But then, 'laziness' is the catch-all cause that armchair critics use for any situation they don't like and haven't bothered to think through the reasons for, so I can't say I'm surprised.
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.
Although I have nothing to do with the torrent myself, I should note for the benefit of those who are finding starcraft2.com to be sluggishly slashdotted, all the "good stuff" from the site is available via BitTorrent.
Enjoy.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
None of these gameplay changes you state are improvements to the RTS genre. The squad model in Dawn of War is terrible. It helps bad players who can't control their units properly, but it's a big hindrance to high-level players who micromanage their troops. I would much prefer if they had an option to turn it off so I could control my troops individually. I can't stress this enough; no one who actually likes Starcraft would want to use the squad model.
Resurrecting heroes in Warcraft 3 is widely considered to be a mistake rather than a step forward for real-time strategy.
The resource model in Dawn of War also puts tremendous limits on gameplay dynamics involving resource gathering. Resource attacks in Starcraft involve running past base defenses to slaughter SCVs; planting siege tanks on an elevation within range of probes; burrowing drones or recalling probes to instantly recover from a resource attack; dropshipping an assault force directly into the opponent's mineral field to bypass defenses; and even in the gameplay footage for Starcraft 2 we already see even deeper resource gameplay with jetpack troopers coming in from behind to assault a group of mining probes. That's just considering resource combat; something as simple as deciding how many resource gatherers to build is tremendously important in Starcraft and varies widely based on the strategy you play. The Starcraft resource model is very deep, and the vanilla flag model in Dawn of War or Company of Heroes is just boring in comparison.
Call me a fanboy if you want, but everything about Dawn of War is terribly simplistic. It feels like a game made for bad gamers.
Besides, if all RTS games adopted all the same features, we'd just have a bunch of different variations on the same basic game. I'd rather have different games.
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.
To each his own, I guess. Those things are all, to me, great features that their respective games brought. I'm also something of a Dawn of War fanboy, but meh. You play Starcraft, I'll play Dawn of War, we're both happy!
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
...that Terran Marine looks even more like an Ultramarine than in SC1.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
I'm totally disappointed that Blizzard would roll out the same RTS (with a few new units granted) yet again.
Personally I'm excited by that. SC1 was great and I love the idea of re-doing it with modern graphics and other enhancements.
I love my sig.
Yeah - I'm with you on that. The 0.8% of the market that wants their operating system for free are all going to rush out the stores to buy their $59 retail editions of the game instead of downloading the torrent 3 weeks before the game is even released.
I totally agree - Blizzard should produce a Linux version of this game, but the market just doesn't justify the expense. It's unfortunate, but true. If Propellerhead Reason, Visual Studio 2005, Half-Life 2 and Starcraft 2 all had official Linux releases, I would never touch a window's machine again. If Linux eventually manages to take a significant chunk of marketshare, like Firefox has managed to do, we'll see official Linux releases, but I can't see too many businesses putting in the effort before that happens.
I was done with PC gaming. I had picked up a Wii to satisfy any semi-casual craving for gaming. My last windows PC was transformed into a sexy Ubuntu + Beryl box. I told myself that not even Spore or Team Fortress 2 could bring me back. I was out, man. No more buying more RAM, Multi-Core CPUs, or overpriced video cards on an annual basis. But then they had to do this...
Anyone know where I can get a good price on a nvidia 8800?
Blizzard has been producing "more of the same" since Warcraft 2. But the key is each time they make improvements in the interface and each game gets better (with the possible exception of WC3, when they attempted a cross genre element with heros). They don't need to move to a whole new genre to make a good game (and their attempts to do so have failed, see StarCraft Ghost). Complaining that this is yet another real time strategy game is sort of like complaining that Civ 4 is yet another turn based strategy game.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I also have Starcraft here, that amazing company even keeps it updated for Tiger OS X.
About World Of Warcraft? I didn't even spare time to download its "demo" or I don't know if it even exists.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.
And calling BS on you was uncalled for by previous poster. Dude's personal opinion is not the holy writ and calling BS on somebody else's opinion is rude, crude and intellectually bankrupt. It's an opinion. For me, my opinion is that Starcraft doesn't need to be changed from what made it successful. There are plenty of other games that go off in other directions. Starcraft was and hopefully the new version is like Chess - easy to pick up and hard to master. Those characteristics made the game re playable and fun over the years and are the reasons we're talking about a new version coming out right now. Oh, and 'woo hoo' - the pictures look awesome. Now I'm just waiting for a chance to buy my copy.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
by coding for cross platform they also insulate themselves from windows API changes, and allow compiling for mac OSX, and possibly for consoles.
Epic puts out linux versions of unreal tournament and that doesn't lose them any money.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Same here!
Blizzard.com is both funny and informative, best source I've found. Check it out.
Aw, come on-- don't you think a nice physics model would be fun to add to chess? Or Hero pieces that gain experience? :^)
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
While that's true, the amount of difference in player vs environment scaling was enormous. In Diablo I, weapons and items tended to have a few attributes, with unique items being the best. I usually had a white Broad Axe and that was sufficient. Some items had great stats and a negative stat bonus. Negative stats made the process of balancing a character more challenging. In Diablo II, all items just added up for more damage and almost had to be rare or better.
The difference in scaling continued on to WoW, where only the best of the best are desired.
However, in terms of graphics, spells, etc, you are completely right. No reason a Warrior should be casting Fireball.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
"A few more units"?
Looking at the game, it looks like the new units outnumber the old ones by a large amount, or did I not see the patch where Motherships, Phase Prisms, Warprays, Immortals, Phoenixes etc were added to the original?
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Agreed. The only game I can think of that I even played successfully was UT2004, and they built it from the ground up using SDL on the Windows platform.
From limited experience, I'll say that most blizzard games aren't too bad in that they will run on Wine/Cedega.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
I personally was disappointed with SupCom not because of the graphics, but because I expected micro to not be important at all.
What I found was, at least in early game, if I didn't explicitly order individual units I'd lose every battle.
This was back in the beta, so maybe things changed.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I wouldn't wine about it if they didn't.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I have to think the game marketshare of Linux is running neck and neck with Apple systems. Blizzard is showing that it is worth it to port to MacOS, so why don't they also feel the same about Linux?
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
A common complaint I see levied against Supreme Commander is that its unit and faction diversity is completely sub-par and the game is too defense-heavy.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Supporting Mac OSX on X86 and not supporting Linux is nothing short of Laziness now.
c id=19191007.
You are mistaken. The migration from PowerPC to Intel has not made a Linux port one bit easier. It has made the Mac market more important as a greater percentage of Macs are now viable gaming systems, especially on the laptop side.
Mac games are not *nix based, they still use proprietary APIs like Carbon and Cocoa to some degree. Also a company like Blizzard that has been supporting Macs for over a decade surely has some internal libraries that are pretty Windows and Mac specific as well. The source code to Mac based games is not really any more compatible with Linux than it was before Apple's Intel migration. All that has happened is that assembly language / SSE from the Windows side does not have to be rewritten in PowerPC / Altivec.
More importantly, the economics of the Linux game market has not changed. Linux gamers primarily dual boot or emulate, until recently Mac users could not do so and a native port was required. If anything has changed, it is not that Linux is becoming more viable, it is that Mac is becoming less viable. I explain this in another post: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235329&
The Linux gaming market is not really viable yet, at least for large developers. I wish this were not true, but it is. Recent events like the Apple Intel migration have not really changed the situation. I'll address some good questions that came from a troll thread.
Supporting Mac OSX on X86 and not supporting Linux is nothing short of Laziness now.
You are mistaken. The migration from PowerPC to Intel has not made a Linux port one bit easier. It has made the Mac market more important as a greater percentage of Macs are now viable gaming systems, especially on the laptop side.
Mac games are not *nix based, they still use proprietary APIs like Carbon and Cocoa to some degree. Also a company like Blizzard that has been supporting Macs for over a decade surely has some internal libraries that are pretty Windows and Mac specific as well. The source code to Mac based games is not really any more compatible with Linux than it was before Apple's Intel migration. All that has happened is that assembly language / SSE from the Windows side does not have to be rewritten in PowerPC / Altivec.
I have to think the game marketshare of Linux is running neck and neck with Apple systems. Blizzard is showing that it is worth it to port to MacOS, so why don't they also feel the same about Linux?
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
I don't really care. It looks to me like they just gave StarCraft a 3d overhaul and after the Warhammer 40k RTS games I don't think I could play StarCraft again, even if it is in 3d. I loved the original StarCraft, played it for who knows how many years. Even my father loved it. But, once with got to play Dawn of War we just couldn't go back to that style of game play.
Give me my expansion for Dark Crusade, I want a new planet to conquer!
I am not much of a gamer, but there is a market for games in Linux.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Perhaps it's just me, but judging from the videos and screenshots (and I'm aware it's nowhere near the final build), Starcraft 2 seems a little cartoony to me. The bright vibrant colors and over the top scaling seems to remind me of the cartoony Warcraft 3 images, rather than the dark severity and gritty look I would have expected. Also, while I'm sure an improved 3D Starcraft would sit well with alot of core fans, I cant help but wonder if they should do more to up the ante in the RTS genre. Other developers are really pushing into new unexplored directions, and it might hurt Starcraft 2 not to evolve a little more. Then again, that could be a good thing. I'm not saying it looks bad or anything, just that it wasn't quite what I was expecting, and from here on my expectations are somewhat altered.
It'd be nice to see blizzard get their act together and release for linux as well, instead of depending on WINE or chite like Cedega for us to play their games. I'm not holding my breath on this one though, they've been failing us for years.
c id=19191075. It is not the role of game developers to develop the Linux gaming market, they just follow the customers to whatever platform the customers choose and Linux gamers are largely choosing Win32. It is the role of Linux gamers to promote their preferred platform and to abstain from Win32 versions. Of course, there are also gamers who don't really give a rat's ass about operating systems and that is just fine. I have no gripe with "gamers" who dual boot or emulate, it is only those who identify themselves as "Linux gamers" that I would chastise and say put your time/money where your advocacy is.
No, Linux gamers have been failing themselves for years. The choice to dual boot or emulate undermines the Linux gaming market, more here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235329&
Don't believe it! Please! For your own good! Never forget Starcraft: Ghost! They will review their earnings on WoW and once again decide that all other things are worthless! Remember the minds that made all our beloved Blizzard classics have pretty much all bailed out!
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It irks me when people see a successful game and say, "Wouldn't it be better if it were totally different?"
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
Judging by the Diablo->DiabloII sequel, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Didn't buy Quake 2 after Quake 1.
;) ). I'm just saying that at this point, I'm thoroughly underwhelmed. And this is coming from someone who has been playing SC since day 1.
Didn't buy Total Annihilation, so I don't know.
Same for FF series, though I'd venture to say that RPGs are a bad example to bring up here.
I'm in the same boat with Halo 3.
Never bought GT2.
And Far Cry is Doom 2 with a better graphics engine? Have you played Doom 2? There's some real differences there.
Yes, I honestly think at this point that it'll be SC with a new veneer. I can even pick out the old strategies from the screenshots and video: warping for Protoss, single Protoss unit strength against sneakiness by Terrans and burrowing/numbers by Zerg.
My beef is that so far, it looks to play the same exact way SC did. When I fork over $50 for a game, I expect something new, rather than a graphics upgrade - especially in a game whose strength and playstyle is completely independent of its graphics. Take WCIII for example: the inclusion of heroes, a focus on small-group combat and actual 3D made for a very different game from both WC2 and SC. Strategies were vastly different, both on a combat and exploration level.
Yes, this is early - very early. Things can change. I remember that originally, SC was accused of being WC2 in space. It ended up being vastly more polished, with a much better mix of units and balance (though I still think that Terrans are the red-headed step children in any Blizzard world
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Somebody mod this guy informative or insightful. :) This is pretty much my price point for SC right now.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Thought when I played Warcraft III - TFT yesterday it made only up 1.5% of the games on bnet, the day before that it was 3%...
So for some reason Starcraft is much more popular, so something must be better with it.
Q1 vs Q2 - I always hated Q2, don't know why, didn't feel like my old game I guess, when I played Quake 1 year ago it was Quake1, not 2, 3 or 4. I guess I could like Q3 but seriously, why buy anything except Quake1? It rocks! (And it's playable on the DS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmEz138lNVs)
SC vs TA - Haven't played any of them so can't say anything.
FFXII vs FFX - See above.
Halo 3 vs Halo - I've seen in game videos of Halo 3 vs Halo 2, and no, I can't see why, except higher resolution with better details of course.
GT 4 vs GT 2 - Haven't played them.
FC vs Doom II - Uhm, are they even remotely like eachother?
diablo was a feature in itself. it opened up a WHOLE genre. dont come up saying that there was some obscure game million years ago that resembled some of its gameplay. doing it fully right and spreading the thing around counts.
starcraft was a revolution in itself. it was the FIRST game that had different races different from each other TOTALLY, while maintaining balance. all other games like age of empires and c&c had either different variants of all units for all races, or in the case of c&c, was a "build and send" game that didnt necessitate any tactics. in starcraft it was about wits, not who builds the most, fastest. you can get shafted despite having hordes if the opponent has appropriate units for fixing you up and does good micro.
im not gonna say anything about world of warcraft. 8 million people are playing it. it has become a milestone for all mmogs.
Read radical news here
As was recently pointed out on the WoW forums, that doesn't necessarily hold true. A poster there pointed out that WoW's popularity is not necessarily indicative of its quality... McDonald's is very popular, but they don't have what's generally thought of as "high quality" food. So, popularity really doesn't have to indicate quality.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.
Every example you brought up of how a new unit would change the way the game plays has already been in SC: dropships/overlords/protoss robot ships, units and counter-units, armor/damage types.... the videos in SC 2 can be analyzed in the exact same way SC videos are analyzed: what's the effect of one unit against another, how do we get around choke points and how do we build our bases for maximum defensive/offensive efficiency.
I'm convinced that there will be no major changes to how SC plays for one reason: professional players will leave the SC series for another game. This way, everyone who has invested his life into SC can pick up right where he left of with SC, and there is no reason to even look at another game.
Why do you think the game was revealed in Korea first? Because it is a game aimed at the Korean professional SC scene. Not only will the changes be incremental, but the impact will be incremental as well... I expect most SC strategies to be very nicely replicated in SC 2 (zerg single unit rush, protoss stealth and warp attacks, terran drops and hit and run). I like your comparison to Diablo, because Diablo 2 was indeed a very incremental change. Though its incremental change dealt with some massive flaws in Diablo (very few builds where viable in the end game, an environment that felt very flat, security of online play etc), which managed to put Diablo 2 in the realm of a great game. I'm not sure I see that here, as none of the issues in SC that I considered major (and here, I am generally in the minority) seem to be addressed: too much emphasis on micromanagement, an atrocious AI, openings that are very, very limited in scope, and a near-complete abscence of actual strategy (like supply lines).
I was hoping to see those things, but that's not to be.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Sources?
Are you going to be one of those nay sayers who use the "Systems sold with Linux pre-installed" as your only source? Remember, tracking the number of Linux systems out there is nearly impossible due to it's licensing setup and the fact few of the systems running it were bought with it pre-installed. Any statistics for or against Linux when it comes to install base will be wrong. Asking for a source on statistics is just a sign of ignorance.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I guess I'm also in the minority about shelling out $50 for what is essentially the same game. :)
I do agree that one of the good things about SC is that it is indeed a very deep game - the balance is good enough that there isn't just one strategy to rule them all, and the rock-paper-scissor units mean that every game plays differently, because someone decided to mix up his units a bit.
That said (and yes, I do realize I'm probably in the minority here), I've been waiting for three things in RTS games that I really haven't seen yet: interactive terrain, some real AI and a strategic approach to battles, rather than tactical. I was hoping SC 2 would bring those, but then again, I should have known better: Blizzard isn't known for major changes in its game series (though WC3 was markedly different from WC2), and it wouldn't dream of alienating its most important market: professional gamers in Korea.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
While I'm happy for all you StarCraft fans out there, I was really hoping they were going to announce Diablo 3 instead of StarCraft 2 today...
Frag 'em all...
Dude, all the UT games outright rock on Linux, as long as you have an NVidia card you should get a little better performance out of the Linux version vs. the Windows version on the same system almost without exception. (Unreal 2 the Awakening is the only one that doesn't do Linux)
There's just one thing you really have to know: "export SETUP_CDROM=(path to your optical drive)"
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Depending on the release date, it may be possible for one to have played StarCraft during high school, graduate from high school and college, work for a few years, go back for a master's, and have StarCraft 2 screw up one's performance in graduate school.
Agreed! I won't buy a Win version, but I will most definetly buy a Linux version.
It really shouldn't be that hard, they're already developing it for OSX, so they're probably using OpenGL.
If they do all their development with something like SDL, and don't use OSX specific API's for sound, etc, then all they'd have to do is to recompile it for Linux.
Seriously what ever happened to Star Craft Ghost?
I had been watching it closely though the blizzard website and the next thing I know they took it off, no explanation, nothing.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Something I think a lot of people who chatter on about Linux gaming fail to remember is its history.
Remember several years ago? Remember when Apple was struggling to break even every quarter? Remember when they were "beleaguered", if you will; and they were reduced to selling computers based on fruity flavors instead of features and performance? Linux was hot shit then... the "next great new thing" that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of. Even outside of slashdot, you could hardly go ten minutes without hearing something or another about how great Linux was and how it was going to make everyone's live better.
Linux HAD all of the best of the new releases ported to it then. A company down in SoCal by the name of Loki was doing it. They were porting, supporting, and selling them like crazy... I was actually able to get the Linux version of Quake 3 Arena from them (mail order) before the PC or Mac versions showed up in stores. They even got shelf space for a while in the local CompUSA. And they eventually failed miserably and went bankrupt. Seems that the Linux community, used to getting everything for free and with the source code, turned out to be unwilling to buy commercial and closed-source games in the volume necessary to financially support even a small start-up.
Oops.
Look at the situation now. Apple is madly profitable and growing its market share again. Everyone but everyone has or wants a Mac, an iPod, or an iPhone. Apple users, by and large, have never had a problem buying their software, and supporting the companies that support their platform. And Steve Jobs can hardly take a dump without the press rushing to collect it and inspect it for the gold he must have crapped out. Linus, ESR and RMS hardly *get* press anymore. And Linux is mostly regarded as "that OS that runs on the servers", not something that's going to take over the world and cast out OS X and Vista into the forgotten dustbin of history.
And then there's the lesson to be learned from Loki.
I think, for simple and sound business reasons, it will be quite a while before anyone major takes a risk on Linux gaming again.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
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...
Eww, plain Broad Axe of all things? I guess you've never beaten the game on Hell difficulty at all, eh? ;)
I agree I'd like the game to have some truer-scale, tactical aspect that uses 3D more (eg, canyons, ravines, rivers, etc), but I don't think this would happen in the "normal" multiplayer. After all, it's an RTS and people expect it to work at least sort-of like the other *craft games.
But on the other hand, even Warcraft III had some of those aspects. The multiplayer and most of the campaigns were "classic" RTS, but part of the horde mini-campaigns in Frozen Throne were quite closer to my hopes. The terrain was closer, with larger buildings. I can only hope something like that will be part of the game.
I realize you're looking for something different, though, but with all due respect, if you're looking for something radically different from Starcraft you shouldn't be looking at Starcraft II.
"I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
Hell, it doesn't even have a subtitle!
(at least not yet)
"I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
I always have trouble with the MacDarts program. Throwing those pixelated darts are really tricky with a mouse...
I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
You're seriously comparing the deep game of chess to the rushing goofiness of StarCraft?
"Sufferin' succotash."
I don't think doing a new MMO game would be that great. I mean, WoW isn't that fun to play. Just because it has several metric fucktons of players doesn't mean it's good, just means a lot of people like mindless grinding, gameplay that rewards time over skill, and/or annoying 12-year-olds.
Completely agree that it looks just like the original Starcraft. The thing you don't realize though is that this is Starcraft 2: Korea Edition. The difference being that the KE is basically Starcraft 1.75 (assuming Broodwars counts as 1.5) and is there to keep Blizzard's largest Starcraft fanbase happy, since Blizzard would still make a killing if Starcraft 2 were ONLY released in Korea. But for the rest of us they have a special surprise in store, to be shown off later after everyone outside of Korea has gone back to other things and everyone in Korea has stopped paying attention until 2015 when they start looking for a Starcraft 3 announcement. That's when they'll announce the "real" Starcraft 2 which is a full re-envisioning of the RTS genre, exclusive to the non-Korea regions.
And you thought Blizzard was just rehashing and cashing in on their old franchises? SHAME ON YOU!
The Farewell Tour II
How about the excuse of "I have a life and don't want to dedicate it to a video game"? I can stop playing Final Fantasy XII, or StarCraft2, and leave it sitting for a month without losing any money, and then pick it right back up. MMO's require massive time dedication. I have better things to do with my time, thank you very little. I'm looking forward to a new RTS I can play on a LAN with my friends, rather than having a revolving cycle of questing, leveling, questing, ad infinitum.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
So if I buy one copy of chess, all other copies of chess are free for me? I better go tell the people at Franklin Mint where to ship stuff...
"Indeed. As I understand it, the primary aim of SupCom was to create a strategic--rather than tactical--game."
Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. As one of the developers of this game (worked mostly on character animation algorithims), I can tell you that you are wrong. We wanted to make a game that was enjoyable if played in a strategic fashion or in a more tactical way. There's nothing worse than a know-nothing who tries to make dumb guesses about someone's intention.
As for the graphics being bland, I'll agree with you. I for one, wanted to make things a bit more exciting (being an animation guy, naturally), but there are reasons that the game looks the way it does, minimalism was an objective. It does lend to the feel of the game, though it could be much cooler.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
There are about ten thousand variants of Chess. If you want I can even link you to a few. This one wouldn't be out of place being called Chess 2. Even Chess is pretty much an evolved version of an earlier game called Chaturanga--Chaturanga 2, if you will. The rules of ancient games(with the possible exception of Go--no, wait, there are twenty ways to score endgame positions in that game, depending on what Go league you're in) are so good precisely because they changed a lot before getting to where they are today.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
The first thing I thought when I saw the screenshots of Starcraft II was: "The units look just like they did on the box for the original Starcraft."
I remember after playing Starcraft for a while looking at the box and thinking: "That's not how the game actually looks! Those units all have extra spiky parts and the buildings have more attachments and who the hell sends a command center into battle?!" I figured that the shots were from many months before release and they simplified the graphics and abilities as they polished the game.
Well, Starcraft 2 doesn't look exactly like those old screenshots. It's more like a beautiful, glowing, high definition revisit to the original concepts. I wonder how much Starcraft 2 is based on their original vision for Starcraft but with ten times as much computer power and a hundred times as much cash available.
Actually, that sounds like the Star Wars prequels -- an old idea returned to with new technology. Except I have some faith that Blizzard can remake an old idea without adding annoying characters, terrible acting, and boring storylines. Then again, they might add a fourth race....
AlpineR
To all those people who are yelling "LOL I DONT WANT WC3 GAMEPLAY" Look at the fucking videos for christ sake. It's a fast paced RTS just like SC used to be. How the fuck is that remotely close to WC3? Even WITH heroes it's nothing close. Have you guys even played WC3? Battles last a long time with your units having 600-800+ HP. SC2 does not look to have that sort of battle mechanics at all. Also to the idiot who wants a RTS/X-Wing/Bridge commander game all in one: Shut the fuck up. Such thing would offend SC Battlenet fans to such degree that they'd probably Zerg Rush Blizzards HQ and have their heads on a spike.
*plonk*
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You do know that Blizzard games have always been released for PC/Mac, don't you?
SC was never an MMO though...
Tech support. They don't want 9,000,000 Linux newbies calling their support lines in unison with every distro under the sun demanding tech support, so rather than setting up an "unsupported" model or a secondary less involved system like Atari does they just say "Not gonna do it" all together.
The "unsupported" model is half-assed, and reflects poorly on a company's reputation. So why should they do it? Again, it is not their job to advocate Linux.
Company of Heroes is an incredible game. They really did a lot with that game. There are moments in that game where i was in awe.
"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.
Did you see the screenshots they put online? SC2 looks exactly like SC1.
Were Blizzard to make a MMO out of StarCraft, it wouldn't look anything like WoW.
Were Blizzard to make a MMO out of StarCraft, it wouldn't look anything like WoW."
Right. It'd be WoW with different skins on it. Hey I'm with you, they should rehash a more recent game.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, no. You obviously haven't played WoW if you think they can just change the models, change the name, and launch WoS.
Neither was Warcraft before WoW.
If you're considering "quality" only to be the taste of the food, then your assessment is biased. McDonalds has great service, and is an extremely fast meal. It's also affordable; it's significantly less costly than going to an actual restaurant.
If you lump all of these things together into say, "value", then McDonalds really does have good value, and its popularity is indicative of that. The fact that I can walk in, pay six dollars, and be eating a full meal within five minutes makes up for the fact that it's not as tasty as an expensive steak I'd have to wait half an hour for.
The popularity of something is always indicative of the fact that it has some quality that less popular alternatives lack (even if that quality is simply viral, like MySpace). In the case of RTS games, gamers are not typically inclined to "go with what's hip", but rather, they go with what they find competitive and fun. Rather than looking for what qualities Starcraft has that Warcraft III doesn't, you've simply dismissed it based on a biased opinion of popularity.
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
The trick is to improve the game by addressing its weakest points without changing its strongest. In MOO II, the least fun things about the game, IMO, were: starts were too slow (not enough to do at the beginning), micromanagement got tedious by mid-game when you had a fair number of colonies, and the game reached the tipping point too soon (the point where you knew whether you were going to ultimately win or lose came well before the end of the game, making the last few hours of play anticlimactic). If they had addressed those things (for example: by increasing the management decisions for the home world, simplifying colony management, making it easier to catch up in technology, and nerfing the most powerful weapons and defenses) and combined that with better AI and some nice shiny new graphics, it would have been great.
In Starcraft, I found the greatest weaknesses of the game to be: the difficulty in meaningfully managing hordes of troops and of coordinating a multi-pronged attack or simultaneously attacking an enemy while defending your own base and managing resource gathering, and the enemy AI in the non-campaign game which essentially made one on one fights a cakewalk but two on one fights extremely difficult, with very little in between on the difficulty scale. If those two things could be addressed, Starcraft 2 would be a great successor to the original.
Sid Meier has done a (mostly) good job in successively refining Civilization, adding new interesting features and getting rid of the stuff that didn't work so well last time, without altering the basic formula of the game.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
So if you're playing Zerg, you can see only like 2% of your units at the same time?
Lame. ;)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
From your own website: Supreme Commander is the first RTS game that has you developing and executing actual strategies. Mere tactics are no longer enough; rushing head-on into an fortified enemy position will do nothing but chew up valuable units. and Plan, coordinate, and unleash strategic ground, naval and air attacks in a true display of combined-arms tactics. From Gamespot: This is a game that's less concerned with the aesthetics of combat than it is with capturing a sense of awesome scale...It's real-time strategy supersized. Massive maps, automated unit loading and routing, powerful waypoint system, and time-coordinated attacks. Yes, clearly my interpretation that strategic play was emphasised over tactical play was completely unwarranted. Now, if you'll excuse me, one of Relic's devs is doubtless waiting to inform me that my comments regarding CoH's excellent tactical play are dumb because the map cut-scenes clearly demonstrate that the game's strategic roots.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Oh give me a break! Your one example hardly proves some kind of rule. Come on. If I had to give just one counterexample I'd say GTA1 & 2 vs. 3.
Creating a followup without innovating is just pandering to the masses (Hollywood, anyone?). I'm not saying every sequel to everything needs to be a completely different experience. There's never anything wrong with keeping strengths--but I'd challenge every author in any medium to continue to be creative and innovative. If SC2 is just a graphics upgrade I will be sorely disappointed.
Limina.Log
why would they need a physics system? People are complaining that you had to micromanage the heros on WC3, what can realistic physics add, other than more little useless details (oh no! the Goliath tripped over a rock on the ground, I better go help him!)
I'm not a fanatic who thinks physics are just a gimmick to replace good gameplay (I loved hl2), but it should be interesting to see what they're doing with this. Otherwise it sounds like they're caving to "peer pressure" (all the cool game engines are doing it!)
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Just because it has several metric fucktons of players doesn't mean it's good
Metric fucktons of players is pretty much what developers are going for.
Wow. You understand more than most game designers out there.
That's the sort of commentary I always hope to hear from an interview candidate (pity I'm in an entirely different field.) Then we do the 45 minutes of in-depth discussion.
I liked Starcraft and will probably like Starcraft 2 like a lot of other people...but the hype surrounding it, dancing girls, thousands of people stuffed into a stadium to see it..seems more than a bit over the top and bizzare.
It's a game, not the answer to forgoing a life.
Puff of Logic is a good name for you. Try to take deeper breaths, it's for your own good. It would make you sound more intelligent.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
I, for one, will need to spawn more Overlords.
I can see the fnords!
No, I've dismissed it because I tried both games, and didn't like Starcraft. At all. It wasn't a bad game, just a thoroughly mediocre one. I thought it was way too rush-centric, I thought the AI was too damn hard, I thought the game didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't done in Warcraft 2. I still think all these things, btw. I merely pointed out that popularity, and you obviously disagree, is not necessarily indicative of quality. I don't dismiss Starcraft because of that fact, I tried it firsthand.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Firstly, I believe you are referring to the energy sword in Halo. Nevertheless, I don't really think one can copyright lunging with a sword, even if it is bluish and glowy.
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
Time to grow up dude
"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."
I think the really big issue you're missing is timing and market saturation. There can only be a few games a person can spend their time on at any one time, and people tend to pick the ones that give them the most fun or at least feel like it because they are without prior gaming experience.
Never underestimate the power of demographics (kids/youngins) who have no experience with older games. I'm in my late 20's and I realize that many turds of a game sell simply because of demographic shifts and lack of experience with prior games.
"You obviously haven't played WoW if you think they can just change the models, change the name, and launch WoS."
That really depends on the amount of energy they put into it. They can very easily, it's a question of if they would. That's beside the point, though. You're ignoring one game for superficial reasons and wishing they'd make a different one based on a game you like. That's totally fine. It's still a rehash, though. Your heart's in the right place, your agument isn't.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Finally a good reason to upgrade my computer! :)
Sorry, no. World of StarCraft would not be a rehash of either StarCraft nor WoW.
If you want to just grind infinitely for free, might I suggest ProgressQuest?
Agreed. I never played much SC - I was busy in grad school during those years - but I played a zillion games of WCII. When I tried WCIII I was extremely bummed out ... when I wanted to be playing god and managing a battle full of dozens or hundreds of units, instead I had to spend all my time babysitting one stupid hero through a few missions to get XP.
When I want to play an RPG, I play a full-blown RPG. When I want to manage a battle, I want to manage a battle. I didn't enjoy a game that gave me a weakened version of both experiences.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the same person as GGP. I thought you were someone else jumping into the discussion.
The reason you may find the game rush-centric is because that's very much how the AI plays. The AI is very good at the opening game, but quite mediocre later on. You're correct in that the game does involve a lot of rushing, but rushes are quite defensible, and the game is much more than an early unit race.
I do agree though that the game would certainly have benefited from different AI settings. If it's any consolation, many people I know (including myself) found the AI far too difficult for beginners, and found it hard to get into the game; the computer will often obliterate new players without giving them the chance to explore the tech tree. Once you're into it though, it's quite possible to single-handedly defeat multiple teamed computers.
AI difficulty levels were introduced in Warcraft III, however, so hopefully we'll see the same in Starcraft 2.
Considering the success of WoW's formula, they'd certainly nudge it in that direction. Sorry, but it'd be "Wow.. but in SPACE!!!" Whoop-de-fuck.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
"Right, because $15 a month is soooo damn expensive. "
It's expensive if it's $15/mo. more than you want to pay. Would you pay $15 for said Big Mac? No? But $15 is so easy to come by! Etc.
"Quit being a loser, get a fucking job, do some side work or whatever, get the money, lay it down, and join the modern era."
Um.. yeah.. Sony didn't get very far with that line, either.
"Waiting for you to catch up is a shitty reason for Blizzard to hold back."
Hahaha. It's the market's fault that Blizzard isn't releasing a product. That's funny. Again, very Sony'eqsue. Bravo.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, you're as illiterate as you are frothing.
I can afford it, many many times over. Unfortunately, the game sucks. It's not WORTH $15/month, or even $5/month to me. Given the obvious troll that you are, odds are you're one of the douchebags who makes it that way.
I liked the original but there were certain limitations of the 2D interface that made the game seem a bit silly. I'm not just talking about the Zerg units flapping their wings and flying on the space maps, I'm thinking about giant honkin' space cruisers getting blown out of the sky by bug spit. WTF? Yeah, I know, it's a limitation of the engine, the same reason why the capital ships weren't much bigger than the fighters in the first two sprite-based Wing Commanders. But hell, Wing Commander went 3D once the computers could support it, why is Blizzard making what appears to be exactly the same game but with 3D graphics?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What's the point of any game? With any game, you're wasting time with some bits on a system that will eventually fade into nothingness. That's no good reason to bash WoW, just because they're better at getting you to waste time than other games.
Fine. If you don't want to play, that's one thing. But saying that $15 is just too darn expensive is something completely different given that even if it was free, you wouldn't want to play.
And no, the douche bags are the ones who constantly whine about trivial shit, like you over $15.
Better than "Just like StarCraft 1, but with updated graphics!"
Well let's not ALL forget to add a little, little word for W40K - Dawn of War. Awesome game.
They didn't release Chess 2 because Chess is Chaturanga 2.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
You two seem a bit bitter...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
While this could be said for some of the expansion packs for Dawn of War.. it's patently false for the original... Dawn of War is one of the coolest and best RTS games ever produced. The best way to play the game is by playing the DoWPro mod... It's the way most good players play anyways. If DoW is checkers then DoWPro is chess. www.dowpro.net
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
"Better than "Just like StarCraft 1, but with updated graphics!""
Not in any measureable way, no. A rehash is a rehash, despite which you'd prefer. You really should have chosen your words better originally.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
rehash (r-hsh')
tr.v., -hashed, -hashing, -hashes.
To bring forth again in another form without significant alteration: rehashing old ideas.
From the videos provided from Blizzard, there is no alteration for StarCraft 2 from StarCraft 1, other than updated graphics. SC2 is a rehashed version of SC1.
Taking SC1 and WoW and significantly altering them by combining them together does not meet the definition of rehash.
"From the videos provided from Blizzard, there is no alteration for StarCraft 2 from StarCraft 1, other than updated graphics. SC2 is a rehashed version of SC1."
Never said it wasn't a rehash.
"Taking SC1 and WoW and significantly altering them by combining them together does not meet the definition of rehash."
WoW with new characters. Rehash.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I was just talking to a friend about this last night. Starting with the C&C 3 release, I've gotten into all the Relic stuff (Dawn of War/Winter Assault/Company of Heroes) and I'll be picking up Supreme Commander bundled with my new Geforce 8600 next week.
All of those games did some really unique stuff with the format, and I'm here to tell you that:
- Supply lines rock as a concept in tabletop gaming. Can't have a war of attrition without them. I wish CoH really made the loss of supplies more painful than it does, but the "all sectors must be connected and defended" thing to keep the supplies coming in is a really welcome advance.
- C&C 3... just fantastic. Awesome, brutal level design. I don't think I've ever played another RTS where I've had to restart levels so many times because I knew there was no way to win with my current strategy. And it came out of EA?!?!? Get those people promoted! Some people don't like the horribly over the top acting in the cutscenes, to me who played the originals, that's the kind of nostalgia I dig. Can't say enough great things about this one.
- CoH is basically a bunch of mods on top of the WH40k/Dawn of War engine... and Dawn of War was awesome, if a little short and easy-ish. They did really interesting things with minimizing the amount of time you had to spend managing your base, and I really liked how customizable the squads were.
Honestly, I'm just ridiculously happy that PC gaming is getting a kick in the pants now. I like my games complex and engrossing to the point that they'd be unwieldy on the console. That's not to say that I don't appreciate Prince of Persia or the new Zelda from time to time, but they just generally don't engage me as deeply as quality PC strategy or RPGs.
I'm still playing WC2 and Starcraft, and I imagine I'll still be playing multiplayer C&C 3 10 years from now. Just have to wait on my slowpoke friends to finish the campaigns so we can move on to some friendly competition.
I'd rather pay once for my game, thank you very much. Honestly, you people act like games that are not MMOs never get new content... User created content, anyone?
What part of "not worth paying for" does your frothing fanboy mind have a problem wrapping around, you ignorant twit? Are you so insecure about people criticizing your precious addiction that you have to fixate on something that wasn't even said to validate your miserable grinding MC-raiding existence? You're proof that WoW is the latest agent of natural selection. Stay at home in your dimly lit computer room and get that l33t gear, night-elf boy.
You're crazy as shit.
But to address your points..
The SC2 engine has been built from the ground up. It has NOTHING to do with Warcraft 3's engine. And hey, if you're bored with the presentation, go play Peggle or something.
The trailer isn't "customized" for the Korean language, it's english CG with dubbed korean over it. They're aliens, ffs, they don't speak English OR Korean!
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
Hell yea on the micromanagement in Starcraft. Unit AI could have been vastly improved...Like Dragoons...Great units in the open field, but worthless if the area was at all constrained because their pathing logic was craptacular. And what the hell was with units randomly wandering off after an enemy unit? They'd go forever! All the way to the enemy base where they'd be wiped out instantly.
If they added a formations interface, where you could (for example) set your melee groups to guard your ranged units...Hell the interface is already there (in that there is a "guard" command) if you just changed the logic around to make it more logical, that would be awesome. There are so many places where that would be useful.
The arbitrary group size limitation is ridiculous as well. What's the point of a group of 12 zerglings? You should be able to group them in groups of 48 at a minimum, and what the hell is wrong with a group of 200? Seriously. Would it mess up the wireframe interface, and if so, who cares? Just put a damn scroll bar on it, and you're good to go.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Statistically, you're likely to finish grad school when SC 3 comes out.
i rements_for_completion_3
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_school#Requ
Starcraft 2, eh? I pray that they include the Strategic Zoom from Supreme Commander. Playing any RTS without it feels incomplete to me now.
Waiting for Warhammer Online.
Its much cheaper than a movie, or a night out on the town.
Its like any hobby just cheaper.
Bitter much?
Vermifax
Logout
A Starcraft MMO would simply cannibalize a big chunk of the WoW playerbase. Blizzard is paying for one MMO and has 8 million subscribers to show for that investment. If they added a Starcraft MMO they would double their costs, but it is highly unlikely they would double their subscriber base.
Can i buy a buriza-do-kanyon for it when DOTA comes out for SCII?
... Nerd And Good Looking: The Next Step in Evolution
This is not acceptable debate language. Please keep things civil, this is a place for intelligent conversation.
I'm in between insightful sigs right now...
I was looking forward to an MMORTS myself.
My bad. I thought this was slashdot.
There is no debate. MMOs are for losers.
Starcraft II is announced and it stops all news from coming to games.slashdot.org for days!
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
This would explain why they put starcraft ghost on hold, they obviously wanted to pull all the resources together to revisit the SC universe. IIRC SC:G was put on hold shortly after War3:TFT was released. I wouldn't be suprised if they resume development of SC:G after SC2 hits. Blizzard sure do know how to keep a secret, its been like 3 years and ZERO leaks o_O
Many kinds of people play MMO's. Only one kind, however, makes broad generalizations and states opinion as fact.
Tsk tsk tsk.
No.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html
Sign the petition, atleast we're trying. >.
You can't take the sky from me.
Looks like we have some dissenters in the bunch. But not I, I'm very glad to see SC2 announced. It will give rise to my SC2 League aspirations Hurra!
http://www.sc2league.com