Slashdot Mirror


StarCraft II Single-Player Details Revealed

As Blizzcon approaches, a number of gaming sites were invited out to California to get an early look at the single-player campaign for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. Kotaku has a detailed write-up (spoiler-free version), and 1Up summarizes one of the missions: "... you're on a planet with an alternating day/night cycle (every five minutes, it switches): during daylight, you're safe. You can build forces and go out and destroy structures. At night, the infected Terrans will relentlessly stream towards your base — necessitating a strong defense against the 'zombie horde.'" An interview with some of the developers is available, in which lead designer Dustin Browder says Blizzard will continue their trend of having downloadable maps and other improvements throughout the game's life. BlizzPlanet posted a mission guide for the part of the game they got to see, and new video footage has been released that shows off the single-player mode.

206 comments

  1. the next lost generation of koreans by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    As if Starcraft wasn't damage enough, now comes Starcraft 2. Millions of young South Korean men idling away their lives on multiplayer servers. I think Blizzard's done them more damage than the Japanese occupation.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by roscocoltran · · Score: 1

      And worse: While they play they don't buy anything!

    2. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how are the dedicated fans of Starcraft going to take any changes in the gameplay? Starcraft was perfectly balanced, the fact that people are still having competitions after so many years shows that much. What can Blizzard do to Starcraft to make it new and worthwhile, without damaging the perfection of Starcraft?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course not. In Korea, only old people play Starcraft.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by snarfies · · Score: 1

      Except that Blizzard isn't forcing anyone, in ANY county, to play their games. The Japanese didn't really give anyone a choice.

    5. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The British didn't force the Chinese to buy their opium either.

    6. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sonic boom you heard was the whooshing of the joke going over your head.

    7. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Blizzard is sponsored by Kim.

    8. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently by adding zombies.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Starcraft wasn't damage enough, now comes Starcraft 2. Millions of young South Korean men idling away their lives on singleplayer servers. I think Blizzard's done them more damage than the Japanese occupation.

      There, fixed that for ya!

    10. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original SC had infected terrans as well.

    11. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

      Next up....Pirates and Ninjas! Then the triumvirate will be complete!

    12. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by tick_and_bash · · Score: 4, Funny

      On the bright side, that's millions of available South Korean women.

    13. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell they gave it away in the beginning

    14. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is patently false. Recall the Opium Wars.

    15. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      As if Starcraft wasn't damage enough, now comes Starcraft 2. Millions of young South Korean men idling away their lives on singleplayer servers. I think Blizzard's done them more damage than the Japanese occupation.

      There, fixed that for ya!

      I wonder if someone could do an energy consumption comparison to see how much extra electricity is being wasted, just in the server room, to play single player when forced to connect to an online server.

      Seems like the green-zealots might have something new to get pissed about...

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    16. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next up....Pirates and Ninjas! Then the triumvirate will be complete!

      Off in the corner, unnoticed and unloved, a single drop of hydraulic fluid leaks from a robot's optical sensor.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      That actually sounds awesome. Starcraft but with Zombies vs. Pirate vs. Ninjas. I would buy that game.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    18. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And cyborgs you insensitive clod!

    19. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But then it's just Warcraft III, and that's just not as good.

    20. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by bonch · · Score: 1

      It wasn't perfectly balanced, and there are still those who will tell you Terrans are the best race overall.

    21. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Jurily · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's because his left diodes hurt.

    22. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seems like the green-zealots might have something new to get pissed about...

      Was this intentional?

    23. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Joelfabulous · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't just that it was insanely well balanced, it's also that Blizzard patched it over the years as exploitable game mechanics came about. It could be argued that the constant focus on balancing and rebalancing the game, as well as listening to the community from pros on down is what made Starcraft a perfectly balanced game.

      (for an RTS -- I suck horribly at micromanaging so TBS is more my bag)

      --
      Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
    24. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the bright side, that's millions of available South Korean women.

      you've obviously never been to South Korea.

      in starcraft, my ass was handed to me by just as many female gamers as male gamers at the PC bang.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    25. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by twocows · · Score: 2, Informative

      And those that will tell you that Zerg or Protoss is. The top three Starcraft players in the KeSPA rankings right now are Zerg, then Protoss, then Terran third (link).

    26. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by quickpick · · Score: 1

      As if Starcraft wasn't damage enough, now comes Starcraft 2. Millions of young South Korean men idling away their lives on multiplayer servers. I think Blizzard's done them more damage than the Japanese occupation.

      Please, quit your bitching. This means all you nerdie honkies can go and scoop up those hot korean women now. Don't lie to yourself. You have yellow fever son, YELLOW FEVER! catch it!

    27. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      It wouldn't be fair to add cyborgs/robots to the mix. The robot overlords would win every time and StarCraft aims to have good balance.

    28. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's such a ridiculous argument...

      Everyone knows Protoss is best...

      Seriously though, the game is fantastically well balanced. Not so much when it first came out but Blizz did an awesome job patching it.

      Starcraft is a classic. SC2 won't be. The Blizzard who developed the original SC is a VASTLY different company than the one who developed SC2.

      Incidentally, I notice no mention of the "There will be 3 different releases, one for each race" nonsense. Have they dropped that? Or are they hoping people might forget that money gouging nonsense?

    29. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I'm not about to try playing against even a Korean child. I've seen some of the videos. It seems like about the time my screen finishes loading, their first rush of a thousand zerglings will hit. Those games just move too fast.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    30. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by zaffir · · Score: 1

      Remember that Starcraft took YEARS to balance- things weren't even close until well after the Brood War expansion's release. Same for Warcraft 3.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    31. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely he found the joke to be in bad taste. Your average Korean looks back at the Japanese occupation with as much amusement as a Jew does with the Holocaust. Now I wonder if the Japanese actions in WWII is some form of Asian Godwin.

    32. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Make it 3D and add more/different units that enable strategies that were not possible in the first game. People forget that Starcraft was pretty poorly balanced (relatively at least) when it first came out. Only after Brood War and a bunch of patches did it get to the point it is today.

      Even if Starcraft 2 is extremely popular and well-balanced don't expect it to overtake competitive Starcraft for at least a couple years. I doubt that will happen, but Blizzard certainly has the skill and reputation to pull it off. But whatever happens, the original Starcraft will still be around for a very long time.

    33. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by 10Neon · · Score: 1

      You'll be robbing trains in the Wings of Liberty campaign- that's a bit like pirates, though perhaps a bit more like western outlaws. And the Protoss have ninjas- Ghosts and Dark Templar. There is also a healthy dose of robots for good measure.

      --
      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    34. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1
      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    35. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      StarCraft 1 had robots already. And ninjas if you count the Dark Templars.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      You have yellow fever son, YELLOW FEVER! catch it!

      Gotta catch'em all?

    37. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by darkvizier · · Score: 1

      North and South Korea should settle all of their disputes via Starcraft. Kim Jong Il can play the Protoss and use the mothership's gravitation beam to complete his plan to bring the moon to the earth. Then he can switch to his true form: the zerg.

    38. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by DirtyUncleRon69 · · Score: 1

      "Robots don't have any emotions, and sometimes that makes me very sad". -- Bender

      --
      They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    39. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by Daravon · · Score: 1

      That's why you don't add them directly to the game. The flesh beast plays the role of the glorious Overlord, who is playing as one of the lesser races. It'll keep the batteries occupied for a while while they generate the delicious electricity to power the world.

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    40. Re:the next lost generation of koreans by xmvince · · Score: 1

      Good, now there won't be so much outsourcing.

  2. Every five minutes by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

    An unstoppable message stating: "What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse" or "The Morning Sun Has Vanquished The Horrible Night".

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Every five minutes by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, there's a nice ferryman to help you cross the water that's mid-map.

    2. Re:Every five minutes by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      A flame whip and holy water was used to kill Dracula.

    3. Re:Every five minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:Every five minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charon?

    5. Re:Every five minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1awesome 2awesome 3awesome 4awesome 5awesome 6awesome 7awesome

    6. Re:Every five minutes by Samah · · Score: 1

      An unstoppable message stating: "What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse" or "The Morning Sun Has Vanquished The Horrible Night".

      Or, "The Dark Eternal Night". ;)

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  3. damn by hypergreatthing · · Score: 0, Troll

    I didn't know starcraft II had worgen in it. I mean, i guess infected terrans are like vampires. Cuz you know, i would of figured that all one needs to do to avoid them is lift your cities off the ground and head in the same direction as the rotation, sounds like a plan.

    1. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or build on the other side of running water, so they can't cross. Or build a really strong wall and put cheap gates they have to ask permission to go through.

  4. Can they do anything wrong? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

    Warcraft(s), Diablo(s), Starcraft(s)....These guys are the Tom Petty of video games; they just can't write a bad game.

    Maybe they'll get smart and include 40 hours of marriage counseling with this one...

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by space_jake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they can create a bad game, they are smart enough not to release it.

    2. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by caladine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, if only they'd add LAN play back.

    3. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh... Starcraft Ghost.

    4. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt there will be a mod for it.

    5. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      You guys remember a few years ago when EA released Need for Speed: Underground and it was lacking LAN support? It wasn't long before someone made their own fix and put out a Lan Patch that added the feature. I bet someone will do the same for Starcraft 2.

      --
      Loading...
    6. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the aborted Warcraft-based game that looked similar to old Sierra games.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    7. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Thansal · · Score: 1

      Warcraft Adventure iirc.

      I am still waiting on my damn Lost Vikings 3.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    8. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am still waiting on my damn Lost Vikings 3.

      I think that part near the end of LV2 where Erik had to jump over a shark was an indication that they don't think there's much left to do with the franchise.

      Though on the other hand I made that up.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by loufoque · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no need to.
      Just set up your own personal Battle.net server.

    10. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by The+Grand+Falloon · · Score: 1

      Man, have you heard "Zombie Zoo?" Maybe it was on a bet or something, but the dude can write a crappy song.

    11. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Warcraft III was pretty underwhelming.

      I have to say, after being subjected to the abuse known as Age of Conan, I sure do appreciate World of Warcraft. I've never seen a game before so eager to alienate new players. Oh, and having voice overs for every single NPC doesn't help if the voice actors are so bad they could be classified as a war crime.

    12. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's actually a cool idea. Play the role of a Ghost doing espionage against the enemy. There's a lot of potential when you flesh out the roles. Next up: Galaxy of StarCraft (GoS) to replace WoW. I'd hate to be the zerg guy that gets turned into a building.

    13. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      They need to sub out the ip and force Obsidian and Bioware to work jointly on the game. Those developers, combined with Blizzard's OCD about quality control, and you'd have the best damn RPG ever created

    14. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blizzard wasn't making Ghost. It was being made by a third party (the name escapes me), with Blizzard being given approval over it. They canned it for not meeting their standards.

    15. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Thing is it's looking increasingly likely that a Battlenet connection will be mandatory for all multiplayer, and possibly single player, as an anti-piracy method.

      So a LAN patch may not be quite that simple.

    16. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Eil · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll get smart and include 40 hours of marriage counseling with this one...

      While we're tilting at windmills, we might as well hope that they'll also stop suing and imposing over-reaching DRM on their fans and customers.

    17. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      After actually reading over the review, it looks like they are adding a lot of role-playing elements to it. There are environments, such as the bar and the bridge, where you just kind of hang out and listen to people talk. This reminds me of the "WoW" preview they had in WCII with that alternate character -- what was his name, beastmaster? Anywho, are you unlocked him, you got to a gameplay model and map that was more like an MMORPG than a regular level with a mission. There was a village as a launching point out of which you adventured. It seemed like a kind of practice run for an MMORPG, to fleshout game-play issues. Seems like the same thing is going on in SCII.

      And it looks like Blizzard has decided that the real money is in online gaming subscriptions. Sucks. Would really like to play SC:Ghost, though, and be a lonely little trooper causing trouble in a big ol' map.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    18. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean like bnetd! Yeah, that worked out real well...

    19. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I have to say is... http://pvpgn.berlios.de/.

    20. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And that's why I won't be buying this. Which is unfortunate because I'm sure it's going to be a great game, I just don't want to put up with that sort of garbage. One shouldn't have to connect to the internet in order to play except in the case where one is playing multiplayer over the net.

      It's this kind of garbage that leads me to never buy games from EA or via MS.

    21. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think the updated battle.net will be compatible with existing pirate servers?

    22. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      The lost me when I found out the three races' campaigns were going to be spread out over three games. Part of the big interest for me for the original was seeing the war from three perspectives, and getting a chance to control all of them. Frankly, no matter how content much they put into any one of the campaigns, it just seems like it's not going to be as interesting as being able to play all three.

      I'll probably wait until they sell the games as a 3-pack for the price of the original, so I suppose it means I've got a pretty big wait ahead of me. Oh well...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    23. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's such a red herring. You log into battle.net, create a private match for you and your friends on the same LAN, and then play. The packets still go between your machines on the same LAN. Unless your LAN doesn't have an WAN connection, there's no difference.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    24. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about those that don't have a WAN connection?

    25. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      It was called Warcraft Adventures. Although as I understand it most of the storylines for that game were rolled into Warcraft 3 and WoW, so it wasn't a complete loss. I expect Blizzard to throw a couple nods to Ghost in SC2, as a *ton* of information about that game was pretty well known among Blizzard addicts.

    26. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure StarCraft II won't run on an Apple IIe. Come on, who networks their 8 computers together for a LAN party but doesn't have basic internet access?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    27. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      One shouldn't have to connect to the internet in order to play

      What part of "Just set up your own personal Battle.net server" don't you understand?
      You don't need an internet connection at all.
      Actually, this is much more practical and powerful than the old LAN support.

    28. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Kotoku · · Score: 1

      As someone who was very high ranked Warcraft III player up until about a year after TFT came out (at which point I stopped playing), I found the increased focus on micromanagement and unit preservation a nice change of pace from Starcraft.

      Warcraft III was a different breed of RTS, really refining the concepts of heroes from franchises like Warlords: Battlecry and making them a central focus without being the entire focus of the battle.

      I can understand why some people prefer the value of units being lower, but larger and more forward looking movements appealing, but personally the intricate battles of Warcraft 3 and the increased need for reconnaissance over Starcraft made it a far more interesting game for me.

      With that said, I still cannot wait until Starcraft 2!

    29. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by JoeCool1986 · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with the setup or anything... but are you saying it is certain that a end user can easily create their own local "Battle.net" server to host games with no internet required? And if so, how do you know this functionality is built in? And when I mean built in, I mean that anyone can easily set it up, not that it might be possible but only for a certain subset of hard-core SC-playing ./ users who tinker around with their servers and networking hardware.

    30. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by shnull · · Score: 1

      yes, that would save a certain community the trouble of creating a hack to fix their lack of dedication to the fans ... which is ofcourse not possible ... it will be totally secured ... after all, there's no such thing as private wow-servers ...

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    31. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      My problem with Warcraft III was that it wasn't any fucking fun.

      I'm sorry to have insulted your God-like Warcraft skills, or whatever the hell prompted you to reply to my post with at rambling, ass-kissing, screed.

    32. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      No, it's not built-in. At least that's unlikely.

      You have to find, download, install and configure the server yourself.
      If you want the server to be accessible from outside your inner network you have to configure your routers as well, but that's basic networking.

      Having the server installed is not enough, you also need to configure the game so that it connects to the server you want it to. This sometimes requires extra software.

      There are written instructions to do that on the Internet (with screenshots, even).
      Anyone with an IQ of 80 and basic understanding of English can do this.

    33. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Thansal · · Score: 1

      pffft.

      All the need are more silly jokes and more puzzles. The games don't need originality, they are seriously golden as is. One of the few games that I go back and play with some regularity.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    34. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure StarCraft II won't run on an Apple IIe. Come on, who networks their 8 computers together for a LAN party but doesn't have basic internet access?

      People in university/college-sanctioned lan-partys? where an entire auditorium is provided for the students to come and play, but no internet access is provided.

    35. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      The only Vikings experience I had was in Rock-n-Roll Racing... 'Olaf unleashes hot fury' always struck me as perverse.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    36. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need to.
      Just set up your own personal Battle.net server.

      That's like saying there's no need for car keys, just pop open the dash, bypass the BCM/VATS and hot-wire it.

    37. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      If they choose to spend the time to learn how, of course. It's still not something that the average person will be likely to have the drive to research on their own and get working. Setting up a web server is also a "basic networking"-type task, but the percentage of gamers that I'd trust to do it is pretty small.

      Face it, as much as it irks someone with technical knowhow (and will irritate luddite gamers when it causes problems), not enough people know enough about the situation to care that online play will be Battle.net only.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    38. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure updated pirate servers will be able to work with the games once the games are released and reverse-engineered. There *will* be some way to play it over LAN, just not at launch, and not without some work both on the parts of the "Battle.net replacement" programmers, and the individuals setting up their own servers.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    39. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Me, when I don't want my asshole friends torrenting Lord-only-knows-what over my internet connection, and I'm too lazy to set up some sort of packet filtering.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    40. Re:Can they do anything wrong? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the analogy at all. I'm pretty sure Tom Petty wrote a good song once. Give me a few minutes and it will come to me...

  5. Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Useful+Wheat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds suspiciously like a standard tower defense game. They were wildly popular when I played starcraft (9 way lurker defense anyone) and if you visit any flash gaming website you'll find a dozen. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (I'm addicted to gemcraft), but it does seem unoriginal. I wonder if they'll give you the ability to change it to nighttime at will.

    1. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Turiko · · Score: 5, Informative

      tower defence isn't exactly right... tower defence always makes the enemy come from one certain direction, or a few. In this one mission, they'll more then likely come seeping out of every hole.... oh, and they aren't so stupid to run right past your base either :).

    2. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Horde (1994) had this same 'night monster rush' concept a long time ago. Blizzard isn't revolutionizing anything new.

    3. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by StreetStealth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If just one mission is tower defense, I think that leaves a good degree of potential for the rest of them.

      I wouldn't worry much about mission variety here -- if the originality Blizzard has been cranking out for of World of Warcraft quests in the expansions is any indicator, they'll have their hands full experimenting with mission structures.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    4. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Hmm... 5 minutes to build and stockpile resources, then a 5-minute wave of zombie attackers.

      I know I've played a flash game with the same kind of gameplay... oh yes, I remember -- it was Super Energy Apocalypse.

      FWIW, I found the timed delay waves annoying. I prefer TD games with either constant waves, like Gemcraft or Desktop TD, or with on-demand waves like Protector.

      BTW, are you playing Gemcraft 1 or 0? I stopped playing at lvl 185 in 0, but now I've restarted and am restricting myself to traps only. It's pretty damn hard, it's taken me a few weeks to reach lvl 40.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by EvanED · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there was a mission in the original SC's (not BW) Terran campaign (around the 4th or 5th) where you have to defend against waves of zerg attacks. In retrospect, it was actually relatively close to this concept, except that the "day" and "night" weren't so well-defined.

      So not only is this not new in general, it's not even new to Starcraft.

    6. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      Arguably fitting; seeing as "Tower defense" began as a Starcraft mod.

      Some would say "Rampart" (1990) started the thing; with it's two phases and turret placement; but i think that the game mechanics differ; primarily through required turret control and the wall segments system (though may TD's also require you to construt walls, to funnel enemies now).

      Oh - and Gemcraft seems awesome.. I'm an utter newb. at it :D

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    7. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blizzard never was a revolutionary company. Warcraft was just dune/c&c with a warhammer-like theme. Starcraft was "just" Warcraft in space, with non-identical sides this time (THE major difference, I would say). Diablo is just a 3rd person real-time dungeon hack. World of Warcraft was not the first mmorpg. What all these games have in common is this: they're well made. To increases sales, they also try not to murder your poor PC.

    8. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by BassMan449 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You stated your self what revolutionary things Blizzard has done. The big one being non-identical sides. Think of the major games before Starcraft. I honestly can't think of a single one that had teams that were more than different models and maybe a few variations on special abilities like Warcraft had. The idea of having 3 completely distinct and yet balanced races was extremely revolutionary. What Starcraft did was show that you could have races that were absolutely nothing alike and yet the battles would still be balanced and fun.

    9. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by impaledsunset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't matter if it's technically a standard tower defense game, looking at the screenshot it looks like it's a little scary at night, so it will probably be a lot of fun, your classic standard tower defense game lacked that feeling. A lot of things technically are the same, but when you change the circumstances, they can become quite different. Technically, walking through an empty street after sunset is the same as walking the same street at midnight. If you go and try, though, it certainly doesn't feel the same.

      You can hardly do much to introduce a new game type that is very different from what you had with the original Starcraft without straying from the genre, but you can improve the old ones to create something new, fresh, and exciting. And that's what they've done.

    10. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total Annihilation had non-identical sides and was released about a year before starcraft.

    11. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The original Command and Conquer had different sides with different play styles. NOD and GDI had a fairly large variation on their unit types. The few that come to mind were the GDI helicopter were better at killing vehicles and the NOD helicopters were good against tanks. GDI heavy tanks while NOD had stealth tanks. NOD had those laser beam defense towers while GDI had a more generic gun platform like tower. If you compare that to the original Warcraft, I think you'll find more similarities between sides in WC than in C&C.

    12. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Archon had non-identical sides.......and the units fought each other and there was strategy. The only piece missing was the real-time aspect.....which in the head-to-head mode, you got.

    13. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by BassMan449 · · Score: 1

      Total Annihilation may not have been identical but they were far from being fundamentally different. Don't get me wrong I love TA and still play it, but it's sides were very similar.

    14. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Alcimedes · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be tossing around RTS's with "non-identical sides" then the list would be incomplete without including the original Dune (not the 2000 remake).

      You could choose Harkonan, Ordos or Atreides which had *very* different units available to them. That game ruled.

    15. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by BassMan449 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They had differences among units sure, but on the whole the races were very similar. With Starcraft playing Zerg requires a completely different style than playing Protoss. As Zerg I can throw Zerglings at you and if they die I don't really care. They are cheap and easy to produce. With Protoss your economy can feel every unit lost. As far as I know no other game had tried something so radical at the time.

    16. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I think you mean Dune II, the first RTS from Westwood. It was released in 1992. And yes, it was a great game. It runs great on DOSBox, and once in a while I still play it.

    17. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by fireylord · · Score: 1

      diablo isn't just a dungeon hack, sheesh, theres endless amounts of nuance in diablo 2!

    18. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along with it being Dune II that you're thinking of, they did not have very different units. Most units were available to every side. From memory, each team had a single unique highest-tier tank (Devestator, Sonic Tank, and some V2 rocket vehicle that released a mind control gas). They also had a single unique building for nuclear weapons, free freemen units, or a sabouteur.

      Also I think the Harkonnen couldn't build light infantry, ornithopiters, or trikes.

    19. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Correct that it isn't like Tower Defense. TDs are about mazing and clustering non-agressive units trying to pass your defense, not destroy it. The custom map you are looking for is "Survival" maps.

      They first appeared in SC custom where you'd have a normal base and waves would come at set intervals with increasing difficulty with the attack-move command - meaning they'd blow your stuff up. I was saddened when it didn't become popular since I enjoyed them very much. For those that recall, this was mimicked in the last wacraft 3 scenario level.

    20. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, Blizzard is revolutionary because they typically do things right. There are very few other games that I can remember (even now) that are as well designed as Starcraft or Diablo. They just work... you can get lost in playing the game, you stop thinking about the engine in the game, where the pathing weaknesses and such are. You just play. THAT is the revolutionary work that Blizzard does.

    21. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      That the next mission, you'll be assaulted every 4 minutes'30 seconds by infected terrans who are a different color?

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    22. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Sparton · · Score: 1

      Starcraft was "just" Warcraft in space, with non-identical sides this time (THE major difference, I would say).

      Or just Warhammer 40K skinned ontop of Warcraft, depending on who you ask. Starcraft II looks in many ways to copy from 40K even more (space marines with jetpacks?), but hey, that doesn't stop them from making a very polished and well designed game.

    23. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      It was also 3d and was the half life of RTS's in modability.

    24. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by msclrhd · · Score: 1

      Not just that, but the Cinematics are breathtaking, the story is well constructed and interesting, and the unit voices/quotes are funny. With each release, they improve and refine the mechanics (e.g. being able to queue actions in StarCraft compared to WarCraft II). I for one am looking forward to StarCraft II.

    25. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      I love me some TA. Now THERE is a game that has stood the test of time with user created content keeping it alive.

      Though didn't the two races boil down to "Get in these robots!" and "No we will not"?

    26. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      And yet I find myself returning to Nethack far more often than either Diablo game.

    27. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 0, Troll

      Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy are the only games I can think of with cinematics to rival Blizzard, but then both those games are more cut scenes interspersed with occasional gameplay. (And I am a HUGE MGS fan, for the record.)

    28. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 0, Troll

      Which WH40K creators Games Workshop can't sue them for because Games Workshop stole most of those ideas themselves anyway. (Alien, Starship Troopers etc...)

    29. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given about half the quests in WOW boil down to "Go get 20 Murloc penises".

    30. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RAMPART!

    31. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You stated your self what revolutionary things Blizzard has done. The big one being non-identical sides. Think of the major games before Starcraft. I honestly can't think of a single one that had teams that were more than different models and maybe a few variations on special abilities like Warcraft had.

      The reason why you can't think of any is that Starcraft is pretty much the only game from that period that still survives. In truth, there were plenty - Dark Reign, for example. If you recall, in that age we called them all "C&C clones", and you had at least one new release of such every month or so. Most of them died almost straight away, some lasted for longer, and Starcraft was the king of the hill - but not the first by far, and the field was largely covered before it.

      No, the real thing that Starcraft had was that the sides were different and balanced. Yes, not so much on release as they are now, but still much more so than any other FPS released to that date.

      That, and it was actually fun to play, even in single player.

    32. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Hrm... I haven't done that quest yet, buti explains why Murloc make that strange gurgling scream and attack everytime you come in range of them.

      On the other hand, I have done half a dozen scat based quests.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    33. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I discovered a bug in Dune II and used it to beat the game. Ordos has a unit called the devourer, which shoots a missile that gives you temporary control (say 30 seconds) of the enemy unit. The trick is to click attack while you have control of the unit but wait until the control has reverted back before you select the target to actually initiate the attack. Do this to your enemy's base and it won't be attacked by its own side.

    34. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The custom maps for warcraft 3 had tower defense games that were amazingly fun, and were suspenseful. At least, as scary as possible when it comes to an RTS game.

      The prospect of an RTS being "scary" is actually laughable, short of a random picture of a zombie screaming at you popping out. Hence this game is nothing new compared to the other RTS games.

    35. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Depends on how specific you define it, there's a recently pretty popular defense genre where you build an energy network and turrets to deal with waves coming from all directions that attack all buildings they see and have to expand outwards to harvest resources (a game I have at hand with that style is Harvest: Massive Encounter). I've had something remotely similar in Fibre (mod for the Spring engine) though that was based on Perimeter.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by Turiko · · Score: 1

      yes, but tower defence is stopping a certain enemy from going from point A to point B, with your base somewhere inbetween the two points.

    37. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      They weren't identical, but they were similar. Each piece had its analogs. (Still, I could kick anyone's ass, human or computer, with the unicorn). Starcraft would be more like if one of the two sides in Archon had nearly all little sword guys, but 3 times as many of them.

    38. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Nothing is more exciting than leveling a character for dozens if not hundreds of hours and then being asked to sift through monster dung for Nagrand Cherries.

    39. Re:Sounds like a Standard Tower Defense Game by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      It was the Starship Troopers (SST) maps. It would be the base, shaped like the one from the movie. You get some marines and an SCV and had to hold off waves of Zerg. You get money according to how many you killed and can build other units and bunkers.

  6. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that when they play these strategy games all they are essentially doing is balancing a giant system of linear equations?

    1. Re:haha by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that when they play these strategy games all they are essentially doing is balancing a giant system of linear equations?

      Dunno, I rather feel that way when I'm on the level-up screen in any of Wizardry or Might & Magic games.

  7. Question is... by space_jake · · Score: 1

    Did they fix the pathing so that the Infested Terrans acknowledge that they have to destroy the Supply Depots before they can attack the Bunkers?

    1. Re:Question is... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Infested Terrans? Try Zerglings, Dark Templar, Zealots, Firebats, Broodlings, Ultralisks, and possibly Archons as well.

      My favorite trick to use against the AI.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You played Starcraft II already???

      Oh, you meant the issue that existed with Starcraft 1...

      What does that have to do with an entirely new game with entirely new code and probably entirely new developers?

      Nothing. Starcraft II has no known bugs because we haven't seen it yet. ;)

    3. Re:Question is... by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm, I can see it now. " BRAINS! BRAIIIII- what? Oh, right, well we're attacking your bunkers, you see, we're all hungry for BRAINS! BRAAAAII--right, sorry. ...The Supply Depots? Really? Are there brains there? No. So what.....munitions. Er, munitions? ARe they delicious? No? So why would....the contract? What contract? I see. Yes. Section 11(b)...in every case the zombies shall attack the supply depots.....bunkers are off limits until such time... Hm. I had no idea. Well let us get to it then, and we'll meet again here in a few. Off we go chaps! MUNITIONS! MUNIIIIIITTIOOOOOONS!"

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  8. Well, maybe we we've found a use for by jayme0227 · · Score: 1
    --
    But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  9. Omega Man? by macraig · · Score: 1

    So does the player character look or sound at all like Charlton Heston or Vincent Price?

    1. Re:Omega Man? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Or Will Smith?

    2. Re:Omega Man? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the Infested sound like Anthony Zerbe?

  10. Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single player by Daveznet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Starcraft Broodwar was not defined by how good it's single player campaign, it was defined by how balanced the game was in multiplayer mode. Sure Blizzard games usually have really great story lines and awesome cinematics but there is a reason why it has been delayed till 2010. Battle.net. For this game to succeed the multi-player aspect must be up to par with Starcraft Broodwar, Blizzard is currently having difficulties with the latest version of Battle.net and this is why it has been delayed till 2010. This single player stuff is nice to see but it is just a very small portion of what is in store for Starcraft 2.

    --
    GL HF!
  11. Another Day/Night RTS?? by neo · · Score: 1

    I'm remembering another game that had a day/night theme. Two sides fighting and one had the advantage in the daytime, the other at night time. Sad if this is just a rip-off of that game. :(

    1. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by Desler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you miss the part where this was only just one of the missions? It's not the entire storyline.

    2. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can remember at least two other games doing this off the top of my head. Warcraft III, Wesnoth (ok, that is a tactical turn based game).

    3. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 1

      Dark Colony ISTR had day/night bias.
      Could be wrong though, it's from a good few years ago..

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    4. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - this looks like a complete rip off of Archon: The Light and The Dark. It'll totally suck.

    5. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Did you forget this is /. and so reading (or atleast comprehension of the article) is not a requirement before posting... :p

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    6. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by lemurosity · · Score: 1

      Wesnoth definitely has it. Advantages are race-based in that particular game. "Good" or lawful units do more damage at day and less damage at night. "Evil" or chaotic units are vice-versa. The 'day' is 6 turns long there, including 'dusk/dawn' periods that are a wash for both sides. It's a pretty pronounced strategic part of that particular game.

    7. Re:Another Day/Night RTS?? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Might and Magic is another.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Glad to know that the only opinion that matters is yours. I'll be sure to consult you next time I need to know if a game is good or not.

    Personally I couldn't care less about the multiplayer. My idea of a good time doesn't involve teenage boys calling me a faggot Mexican Jew Lizard, which is pretty much all that multiplayer games are.

  13. Re:Ladies and gentlemen... STARFOX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do a barrel roll!

  14. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Daveznet · · Score: 1

    Obviously you didn't play the game enough on multi-player to become good at it. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of the hardcore gamers that still play the game religiously to this day. There is a reason why Korea has 3 television stations dedicated to this game and why it is a multi-million dollar industry in Korea. The game has amazing re-playability (multi-player). You can only play single player campaigns for so long until it gets boring. Trust me when I say that the majority of the Starcraft gaming community have NOT been playing single player campaign for 10 years.

    --
    GL HF!
  15. SC2 will require internet to install by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Informative

    incgamers.com
    quote: In order to install the game, "you need to connect once to install the game," StarCraft II lead designer Browder revealed. A player will also either have or sign up for a Battle.net account during the installation process.

    1. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Shooter28 · · Score: 1

      This is a benefit. As long as the game is actually being paid for, Blizzard can continue to put out quality games. Secondly, registration saves your CD Key, so if you lose it you can download and install the game using your Blizzard Account.

      No more keeping old, scratched CDs in a box in the attic.

    2. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by hipifreq · · Score: 1

      That's really gonna help keep the game out of the office LANs isn't it?

      One of the great things about the first 'Craft was being able to install and play either single-player or LAN-based multi from a copied disk. How many offices lost hours and hours of productivity to that feature?

      On a related topic - I'm not too happy about the battle.net multiplayer for another reason. Why connect to some distance server for all that traffic when the overhead could be kept on the local LAN for strictly local gameplay? Especially when the game "checks in" on installation, which presumably would prevent rampant theft.

    3. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Toonol · · Score: 1

      This lost the sale for me. Yes, I have an internet connection. But requiring real-time online registration to play a game is a deal-breaker. It's distasteful. It's one of the reasons I don't have Steam on any of my machines.

      Honestly, this is one of the things I like better about consoles. The ability to play a game is inherent in the physical possession of the disc. That'll probably go away in a gen or two, though.

    4. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 2, Informative

      It goes without saying, though, that this "phone home" feature will be used to enforce an inevitable lifetime install limit. It also goes without saying that this limit will be arbitrarily small.

      What I find more troubling, however, is that this DRM is a vehicle to violate the privacy of the user and otherwise subvert the operation of the computer it is running on against the interests of its owner. I have no interest in joining Blizzard's organization (Battle.net) or being subjected to its terms of service, which Blizzard considers legally binding and may change at any time. I have no interests in my personal information being stored indefinitely in Blizzard's marketing database - ready to be sold to the highest bidder, should the company ever become desperate enough for the cash.

      If I play this game, it will be a pirated and cracked version that does not have these defects.

    5. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      That's really gonna help keep the game out of the office LANs isn't it?

      One of the great things about the first 'Craft was being able to install and play either single-player or LAN-based multi from a copied disk. How many offices lost hours and hours of productivity to that feature?

      On a related topic - I'm not too happy about the battle.net multiplayer for another reason. Why connect to some distance server for all that traffic when the overhead could be kept on the local LAN for strictly local gameplay? Especially when the game "checks in" on installation, which presumably would prevent rampant theft.

      Hell, StarCraft worked on NT 4. That made it one of the few games that actually worked on NT, and considering NT's deployment on office LANs, was one of the few games you could play on an office PC. That alone meant many wasted hours in computer laps and offices.

      As for the no LAN play - that's a somewhat big deal. Blizzard better be working on a way to get battle.net working so firewalls are a non-issue period. Getting a few people together for beer 'n' gaming would suck otherwise if all the time is wasted getting the router configured for starcraft 2. After 5 minutes, we'd abandon our laptops on the floor and play Xbox or something.

      Another place would be at an airport... set up some ad-hoc wifi network, and game with your friends you're travelling with. Given Blizzard's notoriously low system requirements, it probably will play great on the low end netbooks. BUt if everyone has to pay for wifi service, ugh. Hell, cross-country roadtrips, too. You probably can get it working between cars...

    6. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by brkello · · Score: 1

      This has been stated numerous times...but most likely if you are playing on the same LAN, you will only need to use battle.net as a matchmaking service and all the packets for the game will stay on your LAN. I honestly don't really care about the LAN issue since I haven't been to a LAN party in years. But I can understand your disappointment. But it really isn't that big of deal as people are making it out to be.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    7. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by brkello · · Score: 1

      Yes, but consoles are different aren't they? They are a lot more locked down requiring a more complex hack to break open for piracy. If people actually paid for the games they played, this wouldn't be issue. But that's not the world we live in and so companies have to balance anti-piracy techniques with losing customers that don't like when they do it.

      But odds are, most of the people crying about the LAN issues on here are going to buy it anyways. There haven't been many good RTS games out lately. If you are a gamer...particularly one that like RTS's...you are like a moth to the flame. You know it is going to burn, but you are going to go anyways and enjoy the ride.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    8. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Desler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why connect to some distance server for all that traffic when the overhead could be kept on the local LAN for strictly local gameplay?

      You've apparently never played on Battle.net before. Battle.net has never worked this way. The people all directly connect to each other there is no remote server involved at all. There is no reason to expect this behavior to change.

    9. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      It goes without saying, though, that this "phone home" feature will be used to enforce an inevitable lifetime install limit. It also goes without saying that this limit will be arbitrarily small.

      Not necessarily. They could allow installing on any number of machines, but disallow more than one copy from connecting to Battle.net at once. Sure, people who only want to play the single-player game could pirate it more easily (unless single-player also requires a bnet connection), but that might be sufficient deterrent for Blizzard's purposes. It's a little premature to assume Blizzard will be using Microsoft-level DRM tactics on SC2.

    10. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Guess what, they just lost a sale. It will actually be easier and more convenient to get the pirated version, of I suddenly decide to play this crappy game.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      But odds are, most of the people crying about the LAN issues on here are going to buy it anyways. There haven't been many good RTS games out lately. If you are a gamer...particularly one that like RTS's...you are like a moth to the flame. You know it is going to burn, but you are going to go anyways and enjoy the ride.

      I won't.

      I was planning to buy Starcraft II as soon as it was available. I no longer intend to do so, and LAN gaming is the reason why. If Blizzard pulls their head out of their ass and enables LAN gaming without Battle.net, then I will buy it. If a third-party hack becomes available, then I will evaluate whether the most convenient solution is to buy it and hack it, or to illegally download a pre-hacked copy. If such a hack does not become available, I simply won't play it.

      I have no objection to Battle.net being required at install time. However, playing a private game on a Battle.net server is not an acceptable substitute for a LAN game, since bandwidth at LAN parties is usually severely limited and lag is intolerable. And it has always been my position that the only purpose of a single-player campaign in Warcraft/Starcraft is to serve as a tutorial; once I've learned how to play, I no longer have any interest in playing single-player.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just not true.

      Ever did some Diablo Clone hunting? :)

    13. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Since you say you think this game is crappy you wouldn't have bought it anyway, so they didn't lose a sale.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    14. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 1

      They could allow installing on any number of machines, but disallow more than one copy from connecting to Battle.net at once.

      Sure, they could do that, but they won't. I personally guarantee you that they will have an arbitrarily small number of installs allowed per game copy. It's too attractive an option for game publishers not to pursue. Just wait for it.

      It's a little premature to assume Blizzard will be using Microsoft-level DRM tactics on SC2.

      I disagree. First, "Blizzard", the company that gives us all warm tinglies because we loved their early games so much no longer exists. We're talking about Activision, who is no stranger to this kind of nonsense. The WoW Glider and bnetd incidents taught us all we need to know about Activision's feelings about control. They want it for themselves and they don't want users to have it.

    15. Re:SC2 will require internet to install by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But needing to connect to any outside source for permissions to play a game I bought in my house is what I don't want.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Re:starcraft and any blizzard game is dead to me by pwfffff · · Score: 1

    "then you took away the ability to play on my lan" ...but that's OK because...
    "theres really no reason anyone would not want to be on battle.net"

  17. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The game has amazing re-playability (multi-player). You can only play single player campaigns for so long until it gets boring. Trust me when I say that the majority of the Starcraft gaming community have NOT been playing single player campaign for 10 years.

    Sure. But how many copies will a pure single-player gamer (who will only play through the game once and then shelve it) buy? One. How many copies will a hardcore multi-player gamer (who will play it obsessively for years and years until he finally croaks in an internet café) buy? One. Once you've bought your copy, it doesn't matter how much or for how long you play it. The money's already changed hands.
    Good multi-player is a selling point. But don't delude yourself for a minute that the fanatic cliché is who the game is developed for - it's developed to lure in as many customers as possible, and there are a hell of a lot more casual than hard-core gamers.

    Like the Anonymous Coward, I don't really care about Starcraft II's multiplayer (and much for the same reasons) - but if its single-player mode is as good as Starcraft I's, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

  18. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Tawnos · · Score: 1

    To be fair, you are on /. - being called a "faggot Mexican Jew Lizard" seems like the kind of AC troll you see around here. So maybe for it to be a good time only requires the person to be named "Anonymous Coward."

  19. It's only ONE MISSION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chill

  20. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Shooter28 · · Score: 1

    Except the fact that the game is still being played brings in a small amount of sales. Myself, and others have lost numerous CDs and CD keys over the years, especially during moves. We just buy new copies (Blizzard's new online system lets you store your CD keys and digitally download, so this will change some). I've bought 2 physical copies and one digital for both Starcraft and Warcraft III. Multi-player is the sole reason.

    The benefit of having the game good enough that people play it 10 years later is that people have friends. Friends convince friends to try out this old, but really great game. That means the game still makes money while lesser games are no longer even sold.

  21. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    3) Getting the Rules Right

    I am a highly experienced judge. I actually enjoy answering rules questions - and I get a lot of them when I am playing casually, or running paper tournaments. I don't mind teaching players the game. I go out of my way to do so. However, there are times that I really like not having to worry about the rules. On MTGO, I know the rules are just going to work. Sure, a very, very small number of cards are actually bugged, but the vast, vast, vast majority of all interactions are going to be perfect, and I appreciate that.

    I have also played some of the other online alternatives - the ones that do not include a rules engine. People playing those games don't know the rules any better than paper players - in fact, many seem to have even less knowledge of how the game actually works. They, are, however, far more likely to be rude and insulting if you try to call them on a rules error. A very few examples like this:

    Me - "You can't sacrifice Viridian Zealot without a target for the ability."

    Opponent - "Lern the rules, you f**king nOOb." >disconnect<

    have pretty much turned me off those other programs.
    -- http://puremtgo.com/articles/ten-reasons-why-mtgo-better-real-life-magic

  22. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by DisKurzion · · Score: 1

    Sure. But how many copies will a pure single-player gamer (who will only play through the game once and then shelve it) buy? One. How many copies will a hardcore multi-player gamer (who will play it obsessively for years and years until he finally croaks in an internet café) buy? One. Once you've bought your copy, it doesn't matter how much or for how long you play it.

    Maybe true now, where digital download is the new thing..But my gamer friends and I (6 of us) have paid for at least 10 copies of Starcraft over the years, due to lost CD-keys and hardware failures/upgrades.

  23. System Requirements by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

    Anyone have an idea of the recommended system requirements?

  24. Fuck you blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, return my LAN play and I'll pay you your money. until then fuck off. it would be nice to buy the whole thing at once for 60 bux too, but that is almost certainly too much to ask.

    1. Re:Fuck you blizzard by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Please. The internet is everywhere two computers will be and battle.net is free. Why would you have two computers in the same vicinity if they're not on a router? It's been a long time, but back in the day when I would play friends in SC, we would connect to battle.net despite the LAN option because it was easier and it went on our records. (sure, recs don't matter, but it's nice to rub it in your friend's face - "thanks for ten wins, chump!")

      It's the same reason 360 and PS3 titles never have LAN support - 'cause it's unnecessary with broadband and a router, which everyone with multiple online devices have. I really don't understand how the game experience is different between LAN and battle.net.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:Fuck you blizzard by Mendokusei · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand how the game experience is different between LAN and battle.net.

      100Mbps (or even 1Gbps) connection between all the computers directly connected to one another, as opposed to a shared 10Mbps connection (that most likely gets nowhere near that, especially if it is Comcast or some crap) for the entire group of computers, in which each computer must communicate with the Battle.net server in order to receive information that is originating from another computer that is two feet away from it.

  25. Re:Ladies and gentlemen... STARFOX! by masshuu · · Score: 0

    No i think kids learned what "reach-around" is.

    OOOH colbert and your cupcake reach-around... You taught me many things

    --
    O.o
  26. DRM + Restricted off-line play = FAIL by illumin8 · · Score: 1

    A level of "DRM" will also be used by limit installation. Dustin explained "you need to connect once to install the game." While singleplayer will be available offline, installation must have an internet connection in order to proceed. You are also required to have or signup for a Battle.net account in order to install the game. All achievements and friends lists etc will be available as soon as you logon, but the actual single player game is available anyway.

    "You can [play single player offline], but we don't encourage it." Browder said. "We totally allow it if you want to do it," but the point is "you don't get access a lot of the stuff."

    Blizzard just officially became as bad as EA. Ok, no LAN play was a big enough Fuck you to their customers, but now they want us to "activate" before we can play single-player? Sorry, but Fuck you. Well, Blizzard makes good enough games that I guess they can get away with it... for now, but don't think we'll forget this, and if Starcraft II doesn't live up to the hype I will be pissed.

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    1. Re:DRM + Restricted off-line play = FAIL by melikamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate and distrust non-free software more than most, but I actually am OK with this type of non-free for big-budget computer games. Basically, I must be able to run them in the userland, privilege wise, and I want my privacy preserved (no submitting hardware/other software specs without my consent). Beyond that, they can do whatever chit-chat with the home-base they want. They can require uninterrupted Internet connection. (I do, so why cannot they? Being on the Internet is quite a priority for me, and I am not alone here.) A title can submit my usage statistics for itself. I am OK with all that producer-serving crap because its just a freaking game. It's a pure luxury and an expensive work of art, and I am thankful for having it at all. As far as copy protection goes, this is the least annoying one for me as a user. This is by far the best (for everyone) way to pay for big-budget games. The only thing better is paying up front for a free game.

    2. Re:DRM + Restricted off-line play = FAIL by illumin8 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Beyond that, they can do whatever chit-chat with the home-base they want. They can require uninterrupted Internet connection. (I do, so why cannot they? Being on the Internet is quite a priority for me, and I am not alone here.) A title can submit my usage statistics for itself.

      Are you kidding me? You're just fine with a single player game that requires a constant internet connection? What if that game installed a keylogger and logged all of your keystrokes while you're playing it and sent them back to the publisher? Are you totally ok with that? What if you alt-tab into another window and login to your bank to do some online banking? Are you ok with the game tracking all your computer usage while it is running, including private passwords and account details, screen shots, etc?

      You might be willing to hand over your entire computer to Activision but I am not. Do all of us a big favor and kindly quit posting this drivel. It's my computer and I decide what runs on it and what privileges it has. If it is a single player game I should be able to play it offline on an airplane while traveling, or on my laptop when I'm away from a wifi hotspot. If I want to software firewall off the game from the Internet to keep it from spying on me, that is my right, as that program is running in userland on MY computer. My computer does not belong to Activision/Blizzard; it belongs to me.

      I'm not sure how you got modded +1 insightful.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    3. Re:DRM + Restricted off-line play = FAIL by melikamp · · Score: 1

      You're just fine with a single player game that requires a constant internet connection?

      I expect my Internet connection to be on. I languish when it's not. I do not care if a game uses it to for copy protection, within reason. Give me a reason to care.

      What if you alt-tab into another window and login to your bank to do some online banking?

      Installing this kind of key logger is illegal, as you should know, so they won't do it. I am OK with a game tracking all my interaction with the same game. The game anyway knows all I do to it, so what harm is there in sharing these stats? This data may be useful for improving gameplay and/or marketing.

      It's my computer and I decide what runs on it and what privileges it has.

      Yes, I don't see how it's different after you installed the game I described. I specified that it should be designed to run in userland, so you will be able to control 1. when it runs and 2. how much resources it has.

      You might be willing to hand over your entire computer to Activision but I am not.

      I am willing to turn over enough processing power and network bandwidth for them to verify that my copy is legit by matching my key, yes. I am OK with them streaming some content to me as well. The game itself will (hopefully) consume a lot more processing power anyway.

      If it is a single player game I should be able to play it offline on an airplane while traveling, or on my laptop when I'm away from a wifi hotspot.

      If this is a real concern for you, get a free game, or get a commercial title from a torrent site. (You are even better off: your copy was free.) Even Stallman agrees that non-free entertainment software is OK. It's a decent compromise, IMHO.

    4. Re:DRM + Restricted off-line play = FAIL by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Here is a reason:
      You are completly dependent on a single source outside your control for the game you BOUGHT to work. In principle, It's like having to drive to the DMV to prove you own the car you are driving every time you started the car.

      I don't mind paying for the game, it's the innocent until proven guilty mentality that pisses me off. Which is a separate issue from 'free software'.

      Stallman is a hypocrite.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. Infested Terrans by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    They were "infested", not "infected". See also Sarah Kerrigan

    I believe they were mind controlled by zerg larvae rather than being undead, so they shouldn't quite qualify as zombies.

  28. That's racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don like how you cast Dracula as like one of my brothuhs. I beat him off with my good hand.

  29. Balance and expansions by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    One of the great things about Starcraft's balance is that each unit is great in certain matchups and awful in others. For example, vultures are great versus zealots or dark templar but not so good versus dragoons or archons. My biggest fear with Starcraft 2 is that there seem to be so many dimensions of advantage/disadvantage that it will be very hard to build an overall strong defense.

    Likewise, when most of your opponents are playing one race then you can gain advantages by playing another race with special weapons versus the dominant race. Thus no single race is ever the universal best (unless they REALLY screw up the balance).

    Was two releases of the original Starcraft "nonsense"? Would you have cried "money gouging" if Blizzard released a second expansion a year after Brood War?

    1. Re:Balance and expansions by dhalsim2 · · Score: 1
      From StarCraft II FAQ on blizzard.com:

      What is the StarCraft II Trilogy?

      The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series' main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.

      "Money gouging" is subjective, but Blizzard has subtly been raising prices of their games all along. I was able to play SC with a bunch of friends using a single copy of the game way back then. With WCIII, spawns no longer worked, so I had to buy three copies to play with my wife and kid on Battle.net. Now I have to buy three games just to get the full gaming experience for myself!

    2. Re:Balance and expansions by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      You can play all three races in multiplayer with just WoL. So really you have to buy no more games as long as you're willing to wait until all three comes out. At worst you have to buy 3 copies of Wings, then one each of the others. I don't see it as unfair for you to buy 3 games to have 3 people play together.

    3. Re:Balance and expansions by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I am disappointed none the less.

      Brood Wars was not the same thing.

      Starcraft was three campaigns with three playable races. There was a sense of completion at the end, as you had a chance to play a full fledged campaign with every race you encountered.

      Brood Wars was just more of the same, continuing the story, shorter campaigns, because it was just "extra" content, and new units and some tweaked play mechanics.

      What they are doing with Starcraft 2 doesn't seem the same. It seems less like adding more on to a complete product, and more like taking a complete product and breaking it up into three separate pieces and trying to sell it as more value.

      As I've said before. I'll be the first sucker in line. I don't play a lot of single player games through multiple times, but Starcraft is up there for me with Zelda, Mario 3, and Half-Life. Every couple years I dust it off and play it again. I adore Starcraft single player. But the loss of the other two races from day 1 is going to drive me nuts.

  30. When I see StarCraft, I'm reminded of Legal threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realy wish that StarCraft boat company that was bought-out by another would drop some of its weight on Blizzard about it's IP having been incorporated indirectly into much of the travel and social interaction in their product.

  31. All 3 of those WERE bad games, except Ghost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it. It was worse than ID Software and 3DRealms, you get a game on a CD that didn't work without the CD in the drive as a simple anti-copytheft measure while the harddrive technology averaged far under being able to hold CD data.

    Then think about the bugs in their requiring versions of DirectX back when it was a shoddy turd, and kids upgraded their parents' DirectX and caused stability issues by it.

    Then think about how the game engine itself was never optimized from the beginning, whereas just like ID Software it was always changing and worse than the game engine, just like 3D Realms, the game content and rules was being shifted around every sub-version that it upset gameplay many times more than any other company and was not the request of the true OWNERS the users unlike the warranted changed by ID Software.

    Starcraft Ghost was the best game FROM THE BEGINNING OF IT'S MAKING: we were given a 3rd POV perspective behind Kerrigan's ass-cheaks the whole goddam game! ^o^

  32. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

    Korea is one of their biggest markets, and in Korea multi-player is where the market is.

    By releasing a good single-player mode, they can expect a good years worth of sales world wide. But by making it fun to play multiplayer wise, they can guarantee sales for the next 10 years - like Starcraft. Starcraft has a multi-billion dollar industry based around the professional Starcraft gaming sector, with two TV channels dedicated to 24/7 broadcasts of Starcraft matches and Starcraft-related things 10 years into the future.

    If Starcraft just has a good single player, it'll be just another decent game which has a big hype for a year or two in most countries, then it'll disappear and people will move onto something else.

  33. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original Starcraft has been going strong for 10 years now. It's even a kind of national sport in South Korea. Do you realize what that means?

    Yes, everyone bought a copy once, but every year, some new freshmen want to join the LAN games at school, some new kid grows enough to want to play with their older sibling, someone loses their copy.

    10 years is a long time and new players grow into the game constantly.

    It's the multiplayer that makes it different than your standard game where the only thing that matters is the opening week/month. The next Diablo will focus on the single player for sure, but Starcraft 2 can be released once and bring in money for another 10 years.

    Blizzard wants to keep that market, that steady income, before people start going for flashier, newer games. And they have to do it right the first time or people will be dissapointed and flock away.

  34. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This simply isn't true. The world is MUCH MUCH BIGGER than Korea. Sure, there'll be a couple of people who want to multiplay against the Koreans but you're pretty much wrong if you think people give a crap about the multiplayer. Outside of Korea, a strong single-player experience is what sells Blizzard games. Period. End of statement.

    The multiplayer features are nice to see, but it is just a very small portion of what is in store for Starcraft 2.

  35. I guess I'm weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like I'm the odd man out, but I'm less excited after reading the article.

    Maybe it's WoW still leaving a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm just not seeing how the hype train is able to maintain itself.

  36. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. But how many copies will a pure single-player gamer (who will only play through the game once and then shelve it) buy? One.

    Actually it will be 3 copies since they're releasing each single player campaign separately.

  37. Re:Starcraft 2 will not be defined by single playe by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Not true. CD's break (get scratched, dropped, lost, etc). I played Starcraft to completion the week it was released, then never played again. However, I've bought it twice more. Why? Because my son still plays it online. If it weren't for his continuing interest in online play, we wouldn't have needed to buy it again even once.

  38. Dumb dumb dumbbbbb by xmvince · · Score: 1

    Single player mode? Boringgggg Let's see that multiplayer LAN that you should have promised us.