New Release Of StarCraft In 4K Ultra High Definition Announced (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Release Of StarCraft In 4K Ultra High Definition Announced (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday March 26, 2017 @07:34AM from the zooming-in-on-the-Zerg dept.

The classic 90s-era videogames StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War will be re-released this summer -- remastered in 4K Ultra High Definition. An anonymous reader quotes The Verge: It will also include a number of updates, such as remastered sound, new additional illustrations for the campaign missions, new matchmaking capabilities, the ability to connect to Blizzard App, the ability to save to the cloud, and more... Blizzard also announced that it was issuing a new update to StarCraft: Brood War this week, which will include some bug fixes and anti-cheat measures, but will also make StarCraft Anthology (which includes StarCraft and Brood War) available to download for free.
Kotaku reports that the news was announced at this weekend's I <3 StarCraft event in South Korea, "a mini-tournament between some of the game's best players being held to honor the game's legacy."

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 07:36 · Score: 1

Blizzard requires more minerals
1. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  They should have updated the game to a 3D engine. Even with higher resolution, the sprite graphics just look horrible these days.
2. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  They're 3d rendered sprites, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. They will look as good as 3d rendered objects in 4k, because that's what they will be. If they do the sprites "wrong" or you have pauses/gaps/warping, then that's a separate issue.
3. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  No, you don't know what you are talking about. Sprites are 2D, including sprite textures.
  They look like crap compared to fully a 3D engine and sprites won't scale up or down nearly as well as polygons.
4. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to fully 3d rendered 360 degree sprites, derp.
5. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  But it's not 3D.
6. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  But it is, just pre-rendered and chopped into sprites. They couldn't possibly have made the game play well with full realtime 3D in 1998. So basically if you want to make a fully raytraced version of the game for 4k, you're more than welcome to try in 2017, but given that there's only a top-down view possible in the gameplay, there's really not much of a point to doing so unless you were going to add a chase cam or FPS mode.
7. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  But it is, just pre-rendered and chopped into sprites.
  Sprites are not 3D. A single polygon face is also not 3D. A sprite mapped to a polygon face is not 3D. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
  
  They couldn't possibly have made the game play well with full realtime 3D in 1998.
  Worked fine for Battlezone and Battlezone II.
  
  So basically if you want to make a fully raytraced version of the game
  Nobody said anything about making a fully raytraced version of the game, but nice strawman.
  
  given that there's only a top-down view possible in the gameplay, there's really not much of a point to doing so unless you were going to add a chase cam or FPS mode
  Or if you want to rotate the view or zoom in or zoom out or have consistent and fluid animation on units no matter their orientation or have the game look nice on any resolution aside from the native resolution of the bitmaps... But aside from those, yeah, nothing to be gained at all.
8. Re: like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  They did an update to 3D it's called Starcraft... 2! The point of the thing is to update original Starcraft while it still plays basically the same.
9. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  Just make them into backgrounds and use mode 7.,. it's easy..
10. Re:like printing money by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 18:12 · Score: 2
  
  I think the problem you're seeing isn't with the way the sprites are projected into 2D, but rather they couldn't change the number of frames in each action. So the animations look jerky and rough instead of smoothly flapping their wings (or whatever).
  
  They couldn't change the animations because that would change the behavior of the code, and gamers rely on precise timings and such for micro. They probably could have made some changes, but it would have been a lot harder and the codebase isn't great. People rely on bugs as standard strategy now.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Worked fine for Battlezone and Battlezone II."
  Uh, no. Those didn't employ massive swarms of fully rendered 3d fast movers that the user had to control. It's entirely different in all ways.
12. Re: like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  3D does not intrinsically make things look better than 2D. Take a still from a Pixar movie and it's basically a 2d Sprite, but it looks great because the original material was rendered in 3D. The fact that it is then turned into a 2d Sprite does nothing to reduce the original image quality.
13. Re: like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  U reatsrds obviously don't know what you're talking about. Need 3-d 64-bit sprites.
14. Re: like printing money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Also need to be multimedia, and CD-ROM.
15. Re:like printing money by syntotic · 2017-03-27 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the games that is most suspicious to undergo SABOTAGE hidden as DEVELOPMENT. The orginal versions were simply PERFECT! I could run them in my kind-of-average spec d machine on Windows 95 and there was absolutely no bugs, errors, defects, glitches, idiosyncrasies, it all run smoothing and as-expected. Only thing it lacked was a voice interface to order groups! But after that machine was lost, I could not find the game again. Then the version in Gamestop did not seem to run well in then day laptops, now it is missing... etc. It is because this game is really such mindless fun and ability based that it must be triggering the powers that be in luddism, antigameism, etc. I would expect the older version to run in this W10 laptops at the same quality to be certain there was no such subtle fun-reducing sabotage.
Annouonced by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 07:37 · Score: 1

We have insane graphics and CPUs but no spell-checking?
1. Re:Annouonced by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  Lancashire accent, perhaps. "Eouuewww."
2. Re:Annouonced by Quirkz · 2017-03-27 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Portmanteau. It was a very nuanced announcement.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 07:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is like a million games like it out right now, most of them in the 10 bucks bin, or simply from some indie dev altogether. Why the fuck would I want to buy a 20 year old game just because "Ohhh, 4k resolution!"?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Seriously? by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's a fun game, mainly.
  
  At this point though, Starcraft 2 is vastly superior to Starcraft 1 in every way. When 2 was first released, you could make a decent argument that it was an inferior game. When Heart of the Swarm came out, it was at least close to Starcraft 1 in terms of gameplay, but now with Legacy of the Void the game is clearly a level above Broodwar.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  You will not, but for anyone under 30 this will for all intends and purposes be a new game. This audience expects up-to date graphics as that is all they know.
  Easy money for Blizzard......... oh and fuck blizzard for Diablo III always on bullshit. Got my money back and will never purchase a Blizzard game again.
3. Re:Seriously? by Fwipp · 2017-03-26 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of people who buy this are going to be fans of the original. "Remastered" doesn't get people to play a 20 year old game if they're not already a fan of the series.
4. Re:Seriously? by GeekWithAKnife · 2017-03-26 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Let's not forget that most people do not have a 4k monitor.
  (and that if this game had any sort of demanding graphics there's very few cards that will run 4k smoothly)
  So the appeal is not only for die hard fans but a rare breed of them too...
  
  I guess someone at blizzard ran the old cutscenes at their native 640x480 bink video glory and just couldn't stand it any longer.
  
  --
  A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  There is like a million games like it out right now, most of them in the 10 bucks bin
  Since I enjoyed StarCraft, can you point me in the direction of one or two that has similar quality?
  Most RTS I have tried are pretty crap.
6. Re:Seriously? by Desler · 2017-03-26 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  4k is being stated as the highest-level of the graphics. It's not locked at 4k only.
7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  I think you underestimate how big StarCraft is in some markets. They literally have TV networks dedicated to the game in S. Korea.
8. Re:Seriously? by lgw · 2017-03-26 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  As a single player game - I found the original campaign to be a lot of fun, and every subsequent version less so. Admittedly, I gave up on SC2 before the expansions came out, as I found the campaign deadly dull. Still, if the single-player campaign is supported by the graphics pack, I'm up for it.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:Seriously? by geoskd · 2017-03-26 09:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Since I enjoyed StarCraft, can you point me in the direction of one or two that has similar quality? Most RTS I have tried are pretty crap.
  
  Total Annihilation
  Its Circa 1996, but It can scale graphics to whatever resolution your hardware supports. I have played it on my 4K system, and its unbelievable what it does for game play. Unlike any Blizzard games, higher resolution gets you more of the map at once. This can be tremendously useful when playing an insane large map. The game can also support far more simultaneous units than anything from Blizzard. It is also true multi-threaded, so it scales up with more processor power available. At 4K resolution, an I7 6950X can handle upwards of a quarter million units in battle before it starts to knuckle under. The game supports up to ten players in virtually any combination of teams. The AI is ridiculously easy to beat, but thats what you would expect from that era. The game defaults to 250 units per player, but you can up that to 500 easily with a config setting. To get more than that you will need one of the myriad of patches available for the game. You can get it on Steam or GOG, or order the Frisbee version off Ebay, I would also recommend getting the commander pack and battle tactics expansions. Many patches will already include these enhancements.
  The overall game controls are also vastly superior, with the ability to select an arbitrarily large number of units into a single grouping, and the ability to queue instructions for units or groups to follow, it allows you to automate much of the boring and tedious parts of RTS while giving you more of what you really want: Glorious Battle
  
  --
  I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
10. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  TA, like the other poster said. Virtually every RTS has taken inspiration from that game. The amount of features that originated with Total Annihilation is incredible.
  Homeworld 1 and 2 are obscenely good quality, and in HD if you like.
  If you are in to Warhammer 40k (if you like starcraft, well starcraft is a very cut-down 40k), there's a pile of excellent games to be had, but they are focused on smaller scales.
  Company of heroes series is also quite nice.
11. Re:Seriously? by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Truly the difference between single and multi-player should be emphasized. I was talking about the multiplayer, and you are talking about the single player.
  
  In terms of single-player, I enjoyed LoTV more than any of the others, although I admit the ending is kind of lame.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Total Annihilation Its Circa 1996, but It can scale graphics to whatever resolution your hardware supports.
  until it decides to crash at random, last time I tried it the game lasted 5 minutes. it's too bad atari sat on this game and didn't do anything with it. same goes for wargaming. yeah yeah i know spring is a thing, but it's not the same.
13. Re:Seriously? by thegarbz · 2017-03-26 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Why the fuck would I want to buy a 20 year old game just because "Ohhh, 4k resolution!"?
  Because it was a good game.
  Because of nostalgia.
  Because you like the game.
  Based on the tone of your writing you don't fit in the above three. So don't buy it.
  I will.
14. Re:Seriously? by TheRealMindChild · 2017-03-26 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Command & Conquer is great as long as it is any of them before Command & Conquer 4
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
15. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's free (as in beer, or Hearthstone) to download and play both. I'm assuming if you want to play more, they're betting you won't mind coughing up the 10 bucks for the extras. This isn't a "hey, lets' just pull in money from everyone we can" type of move, this is a "let's see if we can get a few people who either haven't played the game, or those who played back in the day back into it".
  It's literally a free version of one of the most iconic video games, updated to look and play better on newer systems. This seems to be a pretty damn generous move on Blizzard's part.
16. Re:Seriously? by GeekWithAKnife · 2017-03-26 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah I get it. They are futureproofing it for when 4k monitors are mainstream...
  
  /sarcasm
  
  --
  A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
17. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story, bruh.
18. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Homeworld aren't even close to having the same strategic depth as StarCraft.
  TA is OK but gets pretty stale after a while.
19. Re:Seriously? by nightfire-unique · 2017-03-26 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, TA.
  I remember my brother and I playing that game for so many nights, we got to the point where we'd race to a given objective. The most fun was building the automatic annihilator cannon (can't remember what it was called).
  We finished within 4 seconds of each other, and must destruction was wrought.
  Good times.
  
  --
  A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
20. Re:Seriously? by vadim_t · 2017-03-26 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you notice that we're not gaming at 320x200 anymore?
  Yes, indeed the normal resolution for games does go up over time. 4K will be entirely mainstream eventually.
21. Re:Seriously? by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  with the ability to select an arbitrarily large number of units into a single grouping, and the ability to queue instructions for units or groups to follow,
  Just an FYI, starcraft 2 allows you to do both of those things
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Really enjoyed Supreme Commander in this Genre.
  Could bring any modern PC at the time to it's knees. Would be interesting to see what you can do with it on current hardware.
23. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Really rocks. I don't know why they haven't made another game based on this concept.
  Played this game a lot and and after a few years break each time it seems just as fresh as it did back then.
  And then you have hundreds of add-on units some of which are cool some of which ar broken.
  And even upgraded a.i's.
  It was so easy to modify this game.
  It seems a little bit harder to get to run correctly each time I come back. As the operating systems get further away emulation Windows become more picky.
24. Re:Seriously? by MikeS2k · 2017-03-26 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are also many mods available for TA such as TA Esc that add a new tech level and many more units; the engine in TA is spectacular; each shot is modelled as a projectile with newtonian physics, so that hits/misses are calculated based on shot speed/angle etc rather than being purely hardcoded like in starcraft.
  One downside to TA is the singleplayer story; Starcraft had a truly epic story with multiple sides, good character motivation etc - TA didn't really have that, it just had "here is a mission, kill the other side" - as two automated robotic armies who have been fighting for so long, they forget why they fight - there isn't much scope for heroes in a story like that
  
  --
  120 characters should be enough for anybody
25. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  TO be fair TA was nothing like SC other than being a RTS. TA was pretty bad when it came to tier units above other being indestructible and the zoom out to a minimap was nice but the point of SC limit FOV was to make keep the game consistent and competitive across hardware setups and focus people on the action.
26. Re:Seriously? by KozmoStevnNaut · 2017-03-26 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget, one of the best soundtracks, ever.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
27. Re: Seriously? by Frankzy · 2017-03-26 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  SupCom also has a very active multiplayer scene thanks to the Forged Alliance Forever client..
28. Re:Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  So it only took 100 or 120 bucks to be on par with a game that's been in the bargain bin for over a decade?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
29. Re:Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just watch the cutscenes on YouTube between battles...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
30. Re:Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  If it's strategy you're after, Supreme Commander (plus expansion) may be your game. So far the only game ever where maps are large enough that air transport makes sense and where strategic planning isn't just called strategic because people can't tell strategy from tactics.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
31. Re:Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  It runs fine on current hardware, even with multiple big battles going on at the same time.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
32. Re:Seriously? by Opportunist · 2017-03-26 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice for S Korea.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:Seriously? by mjwx · 2017-03-26 23:07 · Score: 2
  
  Since I enjoyed StarCraft, can you point me in the direction of one or two that has similar quality? Most RTS I have tried are pretty crap.
  Total Annihilation
  snip
  The overall game controls are also vastly superior, with the ability to select an arbitrarily large number of units into a single grouping, and the ability to queue instructions for units or groups to follow, it allows you to automate much of the boring and tedious parts of RTS while giving you more of what you really want: Glorious Battle
  I am a huge TA fan from back in the day. I've got the frisbee and GOG versions... and you had me up until here.
  
  The game controls were TA's only real failing. Hotkeys were terrible. Arrow keys would change pages on the build panel rather than moving the map. Hot key selection required you to hold down the ALT key, just pressing 1 to 0 would simply change the page on the build panel. Because of this, it made the game onerous to play compared to Starcraft (its main rival) which utterly nailed how to do a user interface.
  
  To be fair, all of TA's shortcomings were addressed in Supreme Commander as well as better AI and path-finding (you could queue a lot of orders in TA, but you still needed to mirco manage things as units would keep driving into rocks). For someone looking for a really good RTS, I'd recommend Supreme Commander over TA.
  
  I like both Starcraft and TA (as well as C&C of the 90's). Will I be buying this, probably not.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
34. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  SC1 is an official eSport of South Korea. It is promoted and regulated by the government.
35. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  I remember a gun turret called "Big Bertha". Had long range. A few of them could do a lot of damage.
36. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  But in South Korea this is like an official Super Mario Bros, or re-runs of Wizard of Oz (for US people) or whatever highly culturally significant item you can think of.
  Valve isn't far off, they make a remaster of Counter Strike once a decade and print money with it (although, the game's a bit different so that's a bit like Starcraft 2 instead). Like, Valve, if you release a new Counter Strike 1.5 that works at 4K (in fact, 16:9 and 16:10 support in the first place) and plays on LAN without Internet, people might like it.
37. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Check out TA:Spring!
38. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  The majority of people who buy this are going to be fans of the original. "Remastered" doesn't get people to play a 20 year old game if they're not already a fan of the series.
  No but fancy box art with bad-ass space marines and hot skeleton-wing chick might. With updated graphics and modern networking infrastructure there's nothing preventing a newer audience from adopting it.
  Also, those 30+ year olds who did play the original are coming up on Jr's 10'th birthday. Never underestimate the "misguided dad purchase" market.
39. Re:Seriously? by Translation+Error · 2017-03-27 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Rise of Nations is a great RTS that I still play regularly. It incorporates some elements from Civilization (like only being able to build in territory you control), has 18 nations with unique units and abilities, and a few 'conquer the world' campaigns. An updated version is available on Steam for $20 (US), but it goes on sale for $5 from time to time.
  
  --
  When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
40. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much.
  None of my friends that play RTSs will touch SC2 with a ten foot pole. It just isn't as good as the original. Or at least wasn't. Even my friends that originally claimed otherwise have all given up on it at this point. I'm the only person I know with LoTV.
41. Re:Seriously? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-03-27 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  TA was definitely a fun game. I sunk many hours playing that game, and have fond memories of going to the library to use their "high speed" internet connection to download new units. However, aside from the opening cinematic explaining the plot, it didn't have much of a story, and it plays more like 40 man call of duty, you can't work that much strategy because the game is not well balanced and is at its core just a harvest/build race to the superweapons. StarCraft and Brood War on the other hand are what I would consider a modern digital version of chess, where you can work out strategies and counters, rather than just racing for resources/unit builds.
  I am a little disappointed in how Blizzard is doing it though. They should release them as an expansion for Starcraft II for $10 OR a standalone purchase of whatever they want to charge. I am sure they rebuilt SC on the SC II engine anyway.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
42. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Because it's actuallyfun, jeesh. (Remember these games are why Blizz is around).
  Why play chess?
  Why look at old photos, they're old and don't count anymore right?
  Why even go fishing when you can buy fish sticks at the grocers?
  Why should we even enjoy anything since we all need to work hard towards retirement and then death, why do anything especially for FREE!?
43. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  LOVED total annihilation. An under-promoted yet an awesome RTS game. Thanks for the reminder :D
  Glorious Battle is right!
  I still have blindness from all the explosions & debris flying around, (my seeing eye dog typed this).
44. Re:Seriously? by phantomfive · 2017-03-27 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know but it's only $30 for the latest now.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
45. Re:Seriously? by Talderas · 2017-03-27 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Crash, because it doesn't run well on Windows 7.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
46. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  "... a quarter million units..."!!
  (Heavy breathing)
47. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Because 320x200 is about the size of a stamp on a 4k monitor?
48. Re:Seriously? by Rakarra · 2017-03-27 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much.
  None of my friends that play RTSs will touch SC2 with a ten foot pole. It just isn't as good as the original. Or at least wasn't.
  I'm not sure about that; its interface is definitely far better than SC1's, allowing for more control and group bindings, and eschewing SC1's ridiculously low group limits. Half the time I played that game I felt I was struggling against the interface as much as against the Zerg.
49. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm...
  I can't say that I ever had issue controlling my units and I played games where I controlled all 3 races at once and hit the unit limit with all of them.
50. Re:Seriously? by JThundley · 2017-03-27 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  You can expand the resolution with a hack for original Starcraft, and it looks like they've included that hack in the release of Starcraft Remastered.
51. Re:Seriously? by danbert8 · 2017-03-27 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  My problem was that the multi player and single player were built differently. The single player was more strategy focused as most of the micromanaging was automated (SCVs would automatically start harvesting, and automatically repair stuff around them). Nope, in the multiplayer, it was all about the clicks... Who can click faster? APM shouldn't be the sole factor in victory in a strategy game.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
52. Re:Seriously? by danbert8 · 2017-03-28 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Except I was gaming at 1600x1200 back in the late 90s... So really haven't gained many pixels compared with the 1920x1080 typical resolution of screens today.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
53. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-28 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  They took too much input from the Pro Gaming community. Which not everyone considers important or gives a shit about.
  They simply aren't on the same page with many gamers and when you make a suggestion it gets ignored for months or years until they finally realize that yep, the non-pros have some idea of what they're talking about too.
  Is it better than what it was? Probably. But by now if you didn't like what they'd done before, you've long since quit and aren't coming back.
  The really hilarious part, this game isn't even fun to watch or to try to go pro gaming on.
  It was totally built on the reputation on SC/BW while also kicking the bulk of that community in the teeth. Back in the era of SC/BW pretty much everyone played it. In the era of SC2, when you bring up the game, everyone is like, "Huh?" except for the few diehard fans. Even a few of the elites have come out from time to time to bash Blizzard for their choices. But like I said... It takes months or years to get any kind of response worthwhile, assuming you ever do.
  I would argue they're bringing SC/BW back because they have to to try to reclaim some of the old guard that left in order to maintain growth. I doubt it will work all the ones I'm aware of have long since gone elsewhere.
54. Re:Seriously? by Rakarra · 2017-03-28 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  The really hilarious part, this game isn't even fun to watch or to try to go pro gaming on.
  I'd disagree with that, I think SC2 is easily the best game to watch pro gaming tournaments on. I couldn't get into any of the others.
55. Re:Seriously? by vadim_t · 2017-03-28 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly because high res was easier on CRTs especially if you didn't mind horrible blinking, and it took LCDs a long time to catch up.
  4K is still very demanding for 3D gaming, but since it's exactly 4X of 1080p scaling isn't a big problem. And artwork looks really beautiful in 4K, which seems a good fit for a game like Starcraft.
56. Re:Seriously? by nhat11 · 2017-03-30 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  "higher resolution gets you more of the map at once. This can be tremendously useful when playing an insane large map."
  Bigger or more isn't better sometimes. SC camera view and map size are integrated into the gameplay giving everyone a balance playing field and helping to break down the multitasking and helping to focus on specific areas easier
Don't remake, release the source. by fisted · 2017-03-26 07:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

ffs.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
1. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by freeze128 · 2017-03-26 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's like you're asking Disney to release Mickey Mouse to the public domain.
  
  Blizzard still makes money on the StarCraft IP. Why would they want to stop?
2. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2017-03-27 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be surprised to see Blizzard do either; but he did specify 'the source' rather than 'the IP'; and the two are (relatively) easily separable.
  
  Given that, even at the time, most of the enthusiasm for Starcraft was for a combination of its play balance(having 3 actually-different sides without being horribly lopsided was pretty big news when the standard was two, often basically reskins of each other with a couple of flavor units) and overall style/art direction; I'm not sure who would be interested in just the engine; but Blizzard certainly could release it without giving up any control over the parts of the Starcraft 'IP' that are of actual value. Given the number of people who actually want to look at the code vs. the number of people who just want to play Starcraft, it would be a lot of trouble for not a lot of interest, but it needn't threaten the stuff that is actually worth something.
3. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by sound+vision · 2017-03-27 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  If they release the source, then someone else gets to make the new graphics pack - maybe even improve on the game itself (imagine that!) - and Blizzard doesn't get a cut. Blizzard would rather keep ownership of it all, and advertise the prettified version to the new generation of gamers, who the game is now palatable to. Not only are they looking at re-selling the game to the original fans, they are trying to expand the fanbase to people who would have never played the original. That's a lot of bang for very little buck spent on their part.
4. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by fisted · 2017-03-27 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  If they release the source, then someone else gets to make the new graphics pack - maybe even improve on the game itself (imagine that!) - and Blizzard doesn't get a cut.
  If only there were licenses that prohibit distribution of modified software.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
5. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by Rakarra · 2017-03-27 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  If they release the source, then someone else gets to make the new graphics pack - maybe even improve on the game itself (imagine that!) - and Blizzard doesn't get a cut.
  If only there were licenses that prohibit distribution of modified software.
  Once the genie is out of the bottle, you're not shoving him back in again. Once the source is out, you can't take it back, and you can't stop others from doing anything they like with it and distributing it.
6. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by fisted · 2017-03-27 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  You can stop people from distributing and charging money for it.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
7. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by Rakarra · 2017-03-28 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can stop people from distributing and charging money for it.
  How? How do they stop people from hosting it off of some sketchy website in a country that ignores their lawsuits? They can't even stop private WoW servers that charge for access (or "donations"), no way would they be able to stop something as easy-to-distribute as this.
8. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by fisted · 2017-03-28 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  How? How do they stop people from hosting it off of some sketchy website in a country that ignores their lawsuits?
  DDoS.
  That said, the number of people getting it from some sketchy website is probably small (drop in a bucket, for a company like Blizzard), compared to the number of people who'd get it from legitimate (as in, non-sketchy) sources, which in turn ought to be small compared with the number of people who don't give a flying fuck about the source, and just want to play the game, willing to buy it for small money from Blizzard.
  So I don't think Blizzard would have anything to worry about releasing the source, in fact, the positive PR might well outweight the "losses" (same "losses" that music label xyz suffers due to me downloading one of their tracks which sure as hell i would never even think about purchasing)
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
9. Re:Don't remake, release the source. by nhat11 · 2017-03-30 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  "then someone else gets to make the new graphics pack - maybe even improve on the game itself (imagine that!) - and Blizzard doesn't get a cut." Pretty sure someone already recreated it in the map editor in SC2. SC2 online is free too
Re:No LAN play? and will you have to rebuy this? by ArylAkamov · 2017-03-26 07:51 · Score: 1

I've read that it will include LAN play and nothing about always online. Source?
They better not screw it up. by ArylAkamov · 2017-03-26 07:53 · Score: 1

As long as it isn't a broken mess with a bunch of cut content and missing half the missions (To be released later as DLC), it doesn't sound too bad. I'm looking at you, Painkiller HD. Still, it would be nice if they tried something new for once.
Diablo II HD when?
4k? by fred6666 · 2017-03-26 07:58 · Score: 1

Old games, especially FPS, could scale at pretty much any resolution, you just had to change the resolution setting.
The first thing I'd ask is why doesn't starcraft already works in 4k resolution. Is it because of an artificial limitation in the game? What was the maximum resolution supported?
1. Re:4k? by Desler · 2017-03-26 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the size and resolution of the sprites.
2. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because the sprites don't scale. How do you expect to upscale a 32x32 pixel sprite?
  Starcraft doesn't already work in 4k because then the sprites would have to be rendered for display in 4k too. But they weren't, because back then the resolution was 640x480 or whatever and there was no reason to waste space on supporting larger graphics.
3. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  There were patches to run at higher resolution, but the online servers banned usage of them since the advantage you got by seeing more of the map without scrolling was game-breaking.
  The remastered version will most likely have higher resolution images and keep the view zoomed in.
4. Re:4k? by Desler · 2017-03-26 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, the new version allows zooming in and out.
5. Re:4k? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-26 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing like running Quake with an updated executable on a modern GPU and getting 500+ FPS at 800 x 600.
6. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Talk to me, mate. What hardware are you using; graphics card, the whole nine yards.
  Todays captcha is terrors; I wish to revisit some scary old friends.
7. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  30FPS is enough for anyone.
  -said nobody
  Although in all honesty, the whole FPS argument falls on its face when you apply it to gaming in general.
  A lot of games do not require high FPS since they aren't actiony.
  Only actiony games require it, whether it is FPS, fighters, RTS and realtime RPG games, to name a few.
  I remember playing a horribly simple game a while back made in a game jam, and the FPS was enough to fucking kill machines. (well, turn off improperly heated ones, at that)
  I remember even Minecraft at one point, the intro screen with the animated world rotating around the menu, that used to have unlocked FPS which (ab)used the GPU HARDER than the actual game did!
  Unlocked FPSes can be dangerous and just unpredictable.
  Better to lock it to be honest. It makes things vastly simpler to debug if and when shit hits the fan.
8. Re:4k? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-26 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I did my testing a long time ago on an ATI Radeon 3750 512MB video card with the Dark Places Quake engine. I haven't tried it on my current Nvidia 750 1GB video card.
  https://icculus.org/twilight/darkplaces/
9. Re:4k? by Chris+Mattern · 2017-03-26 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work because it uses sprites of a fixed size, rather than scaled ray-tracing on underlying models like almost all FPSes do. Attempting to run it at 4k would result in units too small to see.
  Starcraft I was locked in at 640x480. It didn't run at any other resolution; this was done both to accommodate the fixed-size sprites and so that people with better hardware wouldn't have an advantage (because then they'd see more of the battlefield on their screens).
10. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have any source for that?
  The trailer shows them zooming out while in replay mode, but that is not the same thing as allowing the players to do it in game.
11. Re:4k? by Desler · 2017-03-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  The trailer showed the same zooming both in replay and live play.
12. Re:4k? by cafelatte · 2017-03-26 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  The maximum resolution was 1024x768. Non widescreen.
13. Re:4k? by petermgreen · 2017-03-26 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  There are two ways a game can respond to screen resoloution changes. One is to keep the view the same but draw it in more detail. That works pretty well for realtime-rended 3D games but for 2D tile based games like starcraft it would mean having extra copies of all the artwork or using ugly scaling.
  The other is to give players with higher resolution screens more stuff on-screen at once (like how most desktop environments worked). The difficult thing with that is especially in a combat-focussed game seeing more at once gives you an obvious advantage.
  Or they can just choose to design for a fixed resolution. Starcraft was fixed 640x480.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
14. Re:4k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  OK, then they might just as well ditch the backwards support with old clients.
  People playing the remastered version is just going to stomp people on the old client.
Niw haedline annouonced. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:09 · Score: 0

Wil heve corect speling.
Re:No LAN play? and will you have to rebuy this? by Desler · 2017-03-26 08:10 · Score: 2

Where are you pulling this bullshit from? Their promo video explocitly says LAN play.
Consumerism is all about this by lucasnate1 · 2017-03-26 08:15 · Score: 1

You create something that nobody wants or needs and then convince them that they have to buy it because they "love the brand" or because it's "rare" or because it's "better" even though it's the same.

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
1. Re:Consumerism is all about this by Desler · 2017-03-26 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Just because you may not want this doesn't mean no one does.
2. Re: Consumerism is all about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  That's what he said.
3. Re:Consumerism is all about this by lucasnate1 · 2017-03-26 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course that someone wants it, as Edward Bernays would say, consent can be manufactured.
  
  --
  Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
4. Re:Consumerism is all about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  Of course users would prefer higher resolution graphics on their retina and 4k displays. That would look better than the 640x480 grainy video quality from the original Starcraft.
  The same thing happened to games when Apple released retina displays for iPhones -- developers added higher resolution graphics for the new display.
5. Re:Consumerism is all about this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  You create something that nobody wants or needs and then convince them that they have to buy it because they "love the brand" or because it's "rare" or because it's "better" even though it's the same.
  You must be one of those people that still watches VHS tapes. No reason at all to upgrade to DVD!
  Many people love the original Starcraft game, just like we love some other classic games that were well done. But a graphics update would be fantastic - and will bring new people into the Starcraft universe. It's much harder to recommend an old game to friends.
20 years by backslashdot · 2017-03-26 08:19 · Score: 1

4K can last 20 years? I don't think so ..8K maybe .. but not 4K. I mean I hope we aren't stuck at 4K for 20 years.
1. Re:20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  The original was fixed to 640x480 and is still being played so 4k can certainly last if the game is fun enough.
2. Re:20 years by lgw · 2017-03-26 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  To see the difference between 4K and 8K, you have to have a screen so large or close that it exceeds your field of view, leaving you craning your neck around to see things, and with a flat screen getting a foreshortened picture anyhow.
  Heck, to see the difference between 4K and 1080p requires you sit closer than most people do when watching TV - it's much more interesting for gaming than "lean back" TV watching. (You'll find TV showrooms set up where you stand very close to the TV when you evaluate 4K vs 1080p - it's a sales gimmick - but for gaming we sit much closer).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
3. Re: 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  720p is probably good enough for most TVs in 90% use cases. Even black and white tube is good enough for 50% Imo.
  The only thing resolution is needed for is virtual reality headsets.
4. Re:20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and no. Your entire FoV only holds about an 8k monitor worth of pixels. But, 80% of those pixels are packed into the center 5% of your vision. Your visual system also does a lot of compression and removes "unless" data. Human perception is great at picking out edges and anomalies. If our entire FoV had the same density as our center of vision, we'd need something more like a 320 megapixel monitor, which is about 10x more than 8k.
5. Re:20 years by sound+vision · 2017-03-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I hope we're stuck on 4k. Otherwise we'll be wasting a whole bunch of storage and/or bandwidth on pixels we can't see.
A little early for April 1st isn't it? by Elfich47 · 2017-03-26 08:29 · Score: 1

I mean this is the right time of year for it. But really; 4k resolution update for a twenty year old game?

--
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
1. Re:A little early for April 1st isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, an update to a 20-year-old, still-hugely-popular game.
2. Re:A little early for April 1st isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Low resolutions of the day really hampered your ability to have full control of massive swarms, which... the game is based around really. So yeah, you don't get it.
3. Re:A little early for April 1st isn't it? by Elfich47 · 2017-03-26 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us did play starcraft 20 years ago. I understand needing an un ending swarm of troops.
  
  On the other hand it is six days before April first and I can believe something like this being fed/leaked to Kotaku in advance as a gag.
  
  --
  Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Shareware Edition by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-03-26 08:45 · Score: 1

When will they release an updated 4k Shareware Edition?
sprite have their advantages by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:48 · Score: 0

I think Brood War looks better than starcraft 2. On the other hand, if the brood war remake gets lavish art detail, and requires a high end graphics card to run, it could be a thing of beauty.
Re:Shareware Edition by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 08:49 · Score: 0

When you no longer have a micropenis.
Still too expensive... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-26 08:52 · Score: 1

I've never gotten into StarCraft. Probably because Blizzard's prices defy gravity then and now. Won't be seeing any Blizzard's titles for $5 at Steam's Black Friday sale.
1. Re:Still too expensive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story, bruh.
2. Re:Still too expensive... by bored · 2017-03-26 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  I''ve got a couple original starcraft disks. I'm pretty sure I didn't pay more than $10 for them (I was pretty cheap back then, I pirated most stuff, only picking up real copies as "payback" when I found them on discount racks). One of them is even in a blizzard game of the year collection I purchased at warlmart for $19 (sticker is still on it) that comes with warcraft 2, startcraft and diablo (the original). Looks like the original msrp was $50 but it was discounted by the time I purchased it (probably in the 2000s).
3. Re:Still too expensive... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  the original will become completely free for everyone in a few days (new patch expected 3/30), and will allow for play against those on the remastered client when it is released.
Re:No LAN play? and will you have to rebuy this? by aktw · 2017-03-26 09:01 · Score: 0

You won't have to re-buy anything. Just play your existing version if you already own it. If you want to play the updated version, then I imagine they'll charge you for that -- but it's not like you can't just play the original. Oh wait, between this and your LAN comment, you're just giving a knee-jerk reaction on "hot button" for the sake of complaining. May as well thrown in a M$ comment somewhere while you're at it.
Original by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 09:08 · Score: 0

I have the original Starcraft CD (version 1.0) in storage. Latest update (1161) is available here:
https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/Patching-Classic-Games
I played the Terran campaign about 8 years ago. I want to finish the game but I've lost interest in hour-long battles.
Go to https://starcraft.com/en-us/ and see a video of the game with side-by-side comparison of the original and remastered versions. (Move the vertical slider to see the difference.)
"annouonced" by TeknoHog · 2017-03-26 09:18 · Score: 1

I think the correct spelling is "annoyed".

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Key bindings by Whatsisname · 2017-03-26 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wonder if they'll update the key-bindings and keyboard controls to match StarCraft 2. After playing SC2 for awhile, controlling units in SC is maddeningly primitive.
1. Re:Key bindings by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  What key-mapping do you use in SC2? The default one, or do you use The Core?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Key bindings by JThundley · 2017-03-26 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Haha right you are. I actually wrote a python script to rebind my keyboard, so hitting n would make marines in case I missed the key. I didn't completely remap everything, that would have been smart.
3. Re: Key bindings by ademar.reis · 2017-03-26 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's a remastered version, not a remake. In other words, it should offer the same gameplay as the original, like it or not. Personally, I would prefer a remake with the SC2 engine.
4. Re:Key bindings by Nemyst · 2017-03-26 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Better luck next time, I would guess. They're keeping restrictions like maximum 12 units selected at once (which is completely inane and nostalgia fogged, I find), so expect the experience to be basically the same, just upscaled.
5. Re: Key bindings by Nemyst · 2017-03-26 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Certain remasters went the extra mile, and people constantly claim that Blizzard is the sort to do just that. Homeworld Remastered comes to mind, having ported all the best features of each game (subsystems from HW2 with ballistics and formations from HW1, among others) into a single, unified, ultimate experience.
  
  Unfortunately, it does appear to be the case that Blizzard are just going to release a texture pack and widescreen fix and call it a day.
6. Re: Key bindings by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 18:20 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I would prefer a remake with the SC2 engine.
  The Starcraft 2: Mass Recall mod does exactly that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What is there to complain about? by Nicolas+Cage · 2017-03-26 09:58 · Score: 1

They're making the original, un-remastered version free. No one's saying you have to buy this. I don't see why the top comments are all negative.
How about D2 LOD? by oic0 · 2017-03-26 12:58 · Score: 1

D2 obviously would be more work, but I would pay for it. It's still an active game and still more fun than D3. Much more replay value despite their numerous attempts to add replay value to D3. The reason? It allows for creativity in character building.
1. Re:How about D2 LOD? by Trilkk · 2017-03-26 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's harder to try to be the king of that market, as Diablo series has been, arguably, surpassed by other companies. As opposed to Starcraft, which (with Starcraft 2) remains the king of its genre.
  If you liked Diablo 2, I suggest checking out Path of Exile in particular, but there's a lot of options there.
  (And no, do not mention Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander - they might be better RTS games, but they haven't out-starcrafted Starcraft. They're more strategically oriented while Blizzard still does the fast-paced rock-paper-scissors -style micromanagement RTS way better than the competition.)
2. Re:How about D2 LOD? by Warma · 2017-03-26 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest looking at Path of Exile. It is the closest spiritual successor to D2, which, by now, has been leading the pack for years.
  Even if they remade D2 and were willing to throw away all its bad features, it's probably too late. PoE has such a large amount of content and such a deep and rewarding skill tree (and -system), that it is extremely difficult for Blizzard to catch up anymore.
Pff... pass. by Gravis+Zero · 2017-03-26 13:00 · Score: 1

I'll wait for the Linux port, thanks. ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Pff... pass. by phantomfive · 2017-03-26 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  It runs on Wine (at least the old one does, we'll see about the new one)
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Pff... pass. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Same engine, no reason it won't.
Re:No LAN play? and will you have to rebuy this? by ckatko · 2017-03-26 14:06 · Score: 1

It includes LAN play according to the trailer.
What the hell are you reading? Or do you just open your mouth and let whatever pops into your head spew out of your mouth?
https://esports.yahoo.com/star...
Congratulations. You know when people talk about signal-to-noise ratio in forums? You're officially noise.
Oh look by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 14:46 · Score: 0

another Blizzard cash grab
Hmm the screen shot by bored · 2017-03-26 15:19 · Score: 1

Doesn't really make me want to buy it. Simply sharpening up the graphics doesn't really do it for me. You have to fill all those extra pixels with more detail.
Do a full rewrite against the newer engine with the exact same behavior and it might be more interesting.
As it is, I have a couple old laptops with 10" screens that I play these old games on. At those sizes the games tend to look pretty good, its only when I fire them up an a 27"+ monitor that they really look terrible.
1. Re:Hmm the screen shot by KozmoStevnNaut · 2017-03-26 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Diablo and Diablo 2, StarCraft, all of these classic 2D games are perfect netbook gaming fodder, as are all the good old adventure games though ScummVM.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
What the hell is the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 15:40 · Score: 0

This is nothing but upscaling the image to 4K. There is no real value to this.
1. Re:What the hell is the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  They also fixed some outstanding bugs, added some new multiplayer functionality, and fixed some compatibility issues with newer versions of Windows.
Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-26 20:58 · Score: 0

Nope. Not giving any more money to Blizzard until they give me back my paid SC2 Battle.NET account, which is tied to a closed e-mail account at a previous ISP.
I've tried to contact Blizzard support twice, even sent a photo of the original license key, but no response, apparently because they require support tickets to be sent from the account in question, which I cannot access because I don't have access to the e-mail account.
4k... by funkymonkjay · 2017-03-27 00:50 · Score: 1

I hope they get remove the mini map and scrolling.
Better Compatibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 00:54 · Score: 0

I don't even really care that much about high-resolution sprites. I want to know if it's going be more compatible with modern OS's.
The 12 unit selection max. by SCVonSteroids · 2017-03-27 02:31 · Score: 1

This will make a lot of people mad, but please, stop complaining about the 12 unit max. There's a certain sense of satisfaction that comes from learning how to 1a2a3a4a your army around the map without having to think about it. That, along with a few other key mechanics truly separated the greats from the Gods.

--
I tend to rant.
RA2 & Yuri's Revenge by acoustix · 2017-03-27 02:38 · Score: 1

I would love to see this done with Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge! I loved those games.

--
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Re:No LAN play? and will you have to rebuy this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 04:13 · Score: 0

MARTYRED FANTASY IN YOUR OWN HEAD
Nice rain cloud you bring to the conversation, but they're just in your own mind.
Here, let me offer you some sunshine:
- it is a graphics upgrades only.
- it is a free download.
- widescreen option now instead of just the square monitor style.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/starcraft-remaster-unveiled-and-original-sd-version-becomes-free-as-in-beer/
Gameplay is EXACTLY the same. Just be grateful they were lazy and only decided to upgrade the graphics... they literally did not touch anything else, (other than minor bugs or performance finessing).
Always Online by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:29 · Score: 0

Biggest question,
Will it require me to be connected to battle.net or whatever it's called to play? If not, my original copy is better in my mind.
1. Re:Always Online by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  ment, if it does require this, then my original copy is better.