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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
This.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
So does the player character look or sound at all like Charlton Heston or Vincent Price?
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!
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. :(
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.
Do a barrel roll!
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!
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.
"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"
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.
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."
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.
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.
Anyone have an idea of the recommended system requirements?
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
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
Single player mode? Boringgggg Let's see that multiplayer LAN that you should have promised us.