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."
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.)
That's because the fans of Starcraft, and RTS games in general, really just want to know how to "win".
Is there any RTS game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? I mean, everyone knows what strategies/units to use and when after the game has been out for a month or so. At that point, if you are a "hardcore" player, you aren't really PLAYING the game so much as following the predetermined steps necessary to win. And in multiplayer, well, we all know that in multiplayer RTS games, if you aren't following one of a couple of strategies, and building the right units in the right order, you will lose.
All of which is why I could never get into RTS games.
kekeke = laugh :)
babo = stupid
^^ =
Gosu = master
Hasu = average
Chobo = noob
HUK = OMG
HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE ^^
God spoke to me.
Whats the big fuss over mission choice?
Dune2 had that sorted rather well years ago - nothing new there.
Well daylight, we had a good run. It's not you, it's me.
You wanna piss off me boy
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
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
Most RTS games (especially Blizzard ones) are hardly that simplistic. Talking specifically about StarCraft, yes the first 5 minutes with any particular race tends to be pretty much the same. From there, however, you see a rapid expansion of game play possibilities that require players to be able to think on the fly. Sure, most good players have a few standard tricks up their sleeves for after the rush but which one is implemented depends on a variety of factors and often times require small changes depending on the players current situation in game. Of course most of the custom maps used on battle.net nowadays take away from this somewhat by removing all terrain and providing player starting spots with near infinite resources but that is more to do with player's purposely removing features of gameplay that Blizzard put in.
Basically, the rush phase is there to weed out any players who haven't mastered the game's fundamentals and becomes near instinctual for skilled players. What follows after is the real meat of the game.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Try Total Annihilation. The AI in that game is ridiculously smart, and learns between sessions. I remember when I first started playing I went heavy on bombers and fast airborne strafing runs across the enemy base. A couple of games later I tried to steamroll the CPU again, but this time all my aircraft were met with a hail of grisly anti-air death. I was shocked, and amazed.
In the end it really forces the player to constantly be trying new playing styles, new strategies, and the resourcing became even more important. TA worked on a "income vs. expenses" model, instead of having resource "stockpiles" like traditional RTSes. This allowed you to maintain a totally automated production line, whose unit AI you can set before it even rolls out of the factory. It allowed truly large-scale thinking, where you can hold a line and fight a massive war instead of micro'ing your units and engaging in limited skirmishes.
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.
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 always thought it was "you want a piece of me, boy".
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.
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).
babo = stupid
^^ =
Gosu = master
Hasu = average
Chobo = noob
HUK = OMG
HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE ^^ HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE Jedi mind trick, ho ho.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.