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."

92 of 161 comments (clear)

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 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."
2. 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 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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."
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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..
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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
24. 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."
25. 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
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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?
29. 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?
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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 Desler · 2017-03-26 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, the new version allows zooming in and out.
4. 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.
5. 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/
6. 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).
7. Re:4k? by Desler · 2017-03-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  The trailer showed the same zooming both in replay and live play.
8. Re:4k? by cafelatte · 2017-03-26 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  The maximum resolution was 1024x768. Non widescreen.
9. 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
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 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
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 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.
2. 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 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?
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 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).
"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."
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.
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.
4k... by funkymonkjay · 2017-03-27 00:50 · Score: 1

I hope they get remove the mini map and scrolling.
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