Slashdot Mirror
StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info
It isn't all World of Warcraft at BlizzCon this year. That little sequel they're making to StarCraft has gotten quite a bit of attention as well. Gamespot has a liveblog transcript of a StarCraft II demo. This one, unlike the last, focuses on the Terrans rather than the Protoss. Several new units and build options are described, along with a bit about the single-player campaign. The campaign is the focus of Kotaku's game coverage, starring Jim Raynor and the crew of the Hyperion. "Part of the campaign in StarCraft II will be focused on Raynor's efforts to make money but taking jobs like this one, missions that ultimately tie into a larger plot. As you earn money, those funds will be put into purchasing technology--upgrades for units and units themselves. Pardo purchased (read: unlocked) the Viking ship for his next mission. This has been done to give players control over the tech progression of the game, instead of following a locked down set of upgrades. Hiking back up to the bridge, Raynor checks out the Star Map. This is where you'll choose your missions. They're much more open ended than in the previous StarCraft campaigns. You'll be able to pick the planet or system you want to tackle next, progressing the story in your own way. Mission briefings provide the summary, objectives, bonus objectives, mission bounty, and recommended technology, so you'll have to choose which best suits your current needs and matches your current level of tech."
I hope not. At least not the Fenix character's...
This thread is worthless without some videos. Give me videos!
... for the campaign, but that seems like it'll be a bitch to balance properly. Let's hope they get it right and it doesn't lead to a bunch of skirmish-like missions only.
Of course, I'm probably the only person on planet earth that liked the single-player campaign and couldn't stand the multi-player (most likely because I sucked so much at it.)
most of the comments on kotaku.com seem to be "open ended = bad." I have to disagree. I forced myself to play through Warcraft III but gave up on the xp because the storyline was too contrived and too repetitive.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
From the looks of the screenshots, the game is gonna have some Wing-Commander-style between mission story telling. Ah, Wing Commander 2 was a pretty sweet game back then.
There are at least two of us.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
This is Blizzard we're talking about, honestly, what have they released that WASN'T done properly?
We can all look forward to the kekekekeke from the koreans again I guess.
Anyone know what it was supposed to mean?
3!
More like what wasn't released. And by that I mean Starcraft Ghost.
Whats the big fuss over mission choice?
Dune2 had that sorted rather well years ago - nothing new there.
I tried Starcraft Brood War a few months ago but lost interest after a couple of missions... I love strategy, sci-fi and a good story and I don't mind at all the dated graphics, but somehow I can't see what's so special about it to deserve such high ratings. IGN even called it the "best real time strategy game ever made"...
What am I missing?
Well daylight, we had a good run. It's not you, it's me.
Campaign http://www.gamespot.com/video/939643/6176222/ Terran units http://www.gamespot.com/video/939643/6176216/starc raft-ii-terran-faction-blizzcon-preview
Short fight:
http://www.gamespot.com/video/939643/6176214/starc raft-ii-official-movie-3
What I hope for is fewer missions. It might sound crazy but I think the 30 missions in the original SC were too many, at least the way they played. It felt like there were 6-7 real missions in the scripting, storytelling and mission types and then there were 3-4 skirmish missions built in to increase the playtime.
Now I think part of that was that then people expected campaigns that long and Blizzard would have been crucified if they'd only made 20-24 missions in total but I think that has changed. The success of multiplayer is the most important reason. Multiplayer and skirmish now are considered part of the gametime and they really weren't back then. The other would be that the average gamer has gotten older and we simply have less time. We want tight storytelling and missions and not all that filler that was normal back then.
Two RTSes that really nailed good mission design imho were Homeworld (great scripting, story and in-game as well as fmv cinematics) and Joint Task Force (it's imho the best game with expanding maps. I.e. you start on a small map, complete an objective and then the map expands and you get the next logical objective with a short in-game cinematic to introduce it. Supreme Commander did it too but much worse -- oh and a warning, if you're interested try the demo, ignore the reviews. The game plays more like Commandoes than Starcraft and IGN&Co apparently didn't notice. The reviews were really bad).
I want 12-15h, a campaign that doesn't feel like it's going too long (unlike this post, sry =). And after I'm done with the campaign I can play skirmish, LAN and online to get my money's worth (unless they charge money for online gaming like it's been rumored, as that would be a major cash cow in Korea)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Comment removed based on user account deletion
your not alone :)
But seriously. You haven't noticed hordes of people playing online games? Hell, I fire up Eve nearly every day for a little bit and there are usually quite a few people there. If I multiply the number of people online by the 14.95 per month, the product is not a business that's on its last legs. And Eve is just tiny compared to WoW or the others.
Are people playing those games on the PSP now? I wouldn't know since I don't own one. You mean it's not like that any more? Nobody cares about Half-Life any more?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I love how this is sounding, so kinda RTS with a little RPG added. Sounds like a winner to me! this definitely just caused my pre-hype SC2 meter jump up a couple more notches.
If you look at the new Viking units info page down the bottom you will see blizzard labeled the picture "The Lost Vikings". Blizzard made a game called the Lost Vikings in 1992. Not sure how many people remember that game still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Vikings ....That was a fun game :)
I remember that some of the best strategies came into play when playing between teams. If one player was, for example, massing carriers, one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague. That one will happily suck down the life of enemy units, which to add to it your terran ally can sneak up a science-vessel, dump an EMP, and basically drop that annoying carrier-rush-force down to nearly nothing for life.
End-result is that the rush fails nicely.
Yes, there was always a lot of build-build-build-rush-rush in the RTS genre, which tends to have a lot to do with the mentality of the players involved. Anyone playing on the "much money" maps was pretty much interested in that form of strategy, whereas under normal maps a good strategy could often undermine rushers quite well. There was, of course, also a good factor of luck or recon involved as to whether one should build defences against early rushing VS focussing on getting their base/units levelled.
SC2 will not be free to play on the upgraded battle.net; there will be a subscription fee, as dictated by Vivendi based on the success of the World of Warcraft model.
Remember the reports last year of Blizzard working on a "next-gen MMO"? This is it.
unless they charge money for online gaming...
Ugh don't even suggest that. I sc isn't as server intensive as wow is. They don't have to deal with persistent inventories and they don't have massive sprawling environments or require constant expensive content updates. If they do that I won't buy. And that is despite the fact that I'm following it very closely right now. I pay enough bills per month as it is.
As for the rest of your note. I'm looking forward to online. Big time. However I will be playing through the single player and the longer it is the happier I will be. I don't care if some missions don't advance the story. I just want to play at least five well thought out, hard missions with my entire tech tree.
But what I would REALLY like to see would be single player with less emphasis on story line so that you can play over and over, like civilization or the total war games. You would pick a planet that has strategic resources, send a subset of your troops there for a turn and try your best to win without taking too many losses. And then you would defend your own planets with troops and static defenses you've stationed there. Now THAT would be fun. It is probably too late in development for such a thing, but I can hope. The pieces are practically already there.
I agree with you on homeworld. Catclysm was absolutely great. Homeworld 2 wasn't bad either. It is too bad the multiplayer was poorly thought out.
Funny how people always bitch and moan about the downhill trend of whatever they've been a part of for any significant length of time. If all the whiny veterans were right, everything would be steadily, and quickly, driving towards mediocrity. Just because there's a lot of shit out there doesn't mean that there are no genuinely good games being made.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Nah, I still think RTS + RGP = Suckatude.
I remember the silly "ghost" or "squad" missions from Starcraft and the increased emphasis on core units in WC3 missions (such as "march your Terran hero and his beasts through the shooting gallery" one). On all those missions, I kept hoping for a "skip the lame RPG-ish levels" option (other than the cheat codes, of course).
Thank god Blizzard still let you skip right past the cheesy cut-scenes.
Long story short - just gimme a good RTS and I'll be happy.
Of course what was really fun is to MC zerg and recall a full supply of Ultralisks under your carrier fleet, but that only really works in money maps.
I'm salivating just thinking about this game, but there's one thing about SC and SC:BW that I hope they fix: variable rotational speeds - a Marine should be able to turn around to shoot at something behind him much, much faster than a mechanized unit could. It always bothered me to see these gorgeously animated characters whose realism (okay, not realism. They're in space, after all. 'Fluidity of Movement,' then) was disrupted by a tank that could turn on a dime and start pounding you. It'd an odd thing for Blizzard to have missed as so many other little details were right, like light air forces being unable to hold perfectly still in flight and drifting a bit, sometimes into range of SAM launchers. That particular detail was amazing; the fact they were smart enough (if I remember correctly) for it to affect fighters and capital ships differently was especially cool.
I just hope Blizzard doesn't drop the ball when it comes to balance the heroes. I played Dawn of War:Dark Crusade and I'll be honest, I simply had my Commanders (read: Hero) stomp through most of the levels after I managed to get certain gear for them (the Tau commander is godly once you get the jetpack and rocket launcher).
If that's true, bug wup. The "StarCraft II" channel on Hamachi will fill up with people playing virtual LAN games.
:-P
However, you don't know it's true. Blizzard has like three or four different teams going at the same time. For all we know, the next gen MMO could be Diablo III.
Wait a minute, so you're saying that people actually play PSP games? I've only seen one in the wild, and that was won in a radio call-in contest.
I heard that they are removing reavers from the game. I liked these mechanical snails.
I hope they leave these for map editor.
Don't you DARE. I like my life just the way it is, teeming with possibilities for productiveness each and every day. I refuse to lose any future job/marriage/children to that god damned Diablo series.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
You know, no one is going to force you to play when/if Diablo III MMO comes out and ruin your life. Except you perhaps.
I happen to find stroking my beard to be cathartic, you insensitive clod! (As for the horde part... well, it's a college campus, beards are all over.) Also, I highly doubt PC games will die off. Considering that new games (say, Starcraft 2) don't seem to be requiring DirectX 10, it doesn't seem that big a leap that other future games will not require DirectX 10.
The interviews implied that Starcraft 2 is going to be an army game, not a hero game. It suggested that, if plot characters are present during the campaign, it will be the exception rather than the rule, so they'll probably be more like the named characters from Warcraft2 and the first Starcraft - regular units with slight buffs and special unit portraits, rather than all-destroying behemoths.
And you were right :D. Our friend has a selective recognition there. He is Turkish like me, and "want a piece of me" has no direct translation to Turkish, not on same context anyway. "Piss someone off" has, on the other hand.
"some of the units from the first Starcraft that have been removed for the sequel have actually been built and will be available for modders to use."
HURRAY!
Oh that would suck, the good part about WC3 and so on and the reason I actually BOUGHT the title is that it's worth buying because it doesn't cost a fortune.
I really doubt sc2 would use subscription thought, it's not like it's a huge title with lots of updates, is it?
Unless Blizzard plans on taking a step BACKWARDS, heroes are going to be a real pain in the ass to balance. Oh and heroes in Warcraft 2 were flat out terrible. They were barely stronger than basic units and since most missions REQUIRED you to keep them alive, not keeping them stuffed in the corner of your base meant you could lose the mission from a random enemy attack.
True
Sure it would. Like more than 1% of Starcraft's audience knows wtf Hamachi is... or even a VPN.
The majority will simply pay, and the fact that the majority are paying will force you to pay if you value the social element.
Let's not deny reality.
You will pay.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Well, from what I've been reading about blizzcon, it looks like they are giving us a happy medium. You will select missions to get extra money to advance your cause and be better prepared for the next mission. That means you can skip most of the optional ones and I can hit every last one, or even jump to harder ones earlier to keep it interesting. There might even be some randomness for replay value for me, although they haven't really clarified it satisfactorily.
My problem with mods is that they usually just weren't very good. Maybe today people are better prepared to make decent scenarios than they were back in the late 90's. That would be nice, but I still harbor a lack of faith.
I didn't really think of the Warcraft 2 heroes as "heroes" who could help me win battles; I thought of them as VIPs that I had to protect; commanders and political leaders that were important to the Horde/the Alliance who were present at the battlefield. (This isn't all that unrealistic; Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Roosevelt weren't exactly fighting on the front lines themselves, important though they were to WW2.)
Of course, such missions were anticlimaxes because the enemy didn't specifically seek out those heroes for assassination; you could just stick them in a corner, as you say, or on a spare transport plane, and never think of them again.