FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
Starcraft 2?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Game Talk View previous topic :: View next topic  

Poll Result
  How excited are you?  
 
Wohoo! Graphics update + a few new units! Awesome!
65%
 65%  [ 17 ]
Meh, maybe if they do something new with it...
23%
 23%  [ 6 ]
Bah, where's my world of starcraft?
7%
 7%  [ 2 ]
Sarcraft? Huh?
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
 
  Total Votes : 26  

 Author
Message
SethP



Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 302
Location: Connecticut, USA



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:44 am    Post subject: Starcraft 2? Reply with quote

Sooo... Starcraft 2?

On a side note, anyone wanna take bets on how long before South Korea declares Starcraft their national sport?
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's always the problem of "rose tinted glasses" with old games, usually the first of a genre leaves a big impression. For example, I used to think Dune2 (the first rts) was my all time favourite game. Then I got Dune2000 many years later and was totally unimpressed, things had moved on.

After that debacle Starcraft became my all time favourite. Together with the Brood Wars expansion I must have played that game regularly for about 18months straight.

So what worries me is how I'll react when I get hold of the sequel. Currently Starcraft occupies a very special place in my gaming universe. I suspect Blizzard will just tart up the game and add a few new units, but will that be enough? I certainly can't wait to get a proper look at it.

p.s. the same thing happened with Ultima Online and Elite, I used to think they were wonderful, but then coming back to them more recently it was a shock how basic and unfriendly they seemed.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We already have starcraft2 its called "dawn of war: amiriete?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Dirty Harry Potter



Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 16



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
We already have starcraft2 its called "dawn of war: amiriete?
While the universes are similar, the gameplay is vastly different :S So, no.. not really :X
Back to top
View user's profile
Crussh



Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 151
Location: Sweden



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldnt it be stupid if they made World of Starcraft? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile
SethP



Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 302
Location: Connecticut, USA



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, personally I'm glad they decided not to go World of Starcraft (yet, anyway).

I agree with Mark on this one, though. Starcraft is just such a great game it's hard to imagine how they could fix it up besides new graphics and a couple new units (although the ability to select more than 12 units would be REALLY nice).

Of course, that's what they said about the Warcraft franchise, I suppose, and then Blizzard came out with Warcraft 3. Am I alone in hoping that Starcraft 2 stays truer to the original in that the heroes are just the regular units with more hit points and damage?
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Dirty Harry Potter



Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 16



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SethP wrote:
Yeah, personally I'm glad they decided not to go World of Starcraft (yet, anyway).

I agree with Mark on this one, though. Starcraft is just such a great game it's hard to imagine how they could fix it up besides new graphics and a couple new units (although the ability to select more than 12 units would be REALLY nice).
You can select -a lot- of units in SC2 Very Happy 24 units at least. and it looks like you can have several "selection tabs" or whatever you'd call them. in the gameplay video there's a 1 besides the group of units selected (this might also just be that it's group 1, but every unit they've selected has this "1".) it looks like there's room for 5-6 of these numbers and the little box it's in. so.. 96 or 120 units selected at once? *shrug* of course I don't know for sure, but this is what sense I can make of it, when looking at the gameplay video.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SethP wrote:

Of course, that's what they said about the Warcraft franchise, I suppose, and then Blizzard came out with Warcraft 3. Am I alone in hoping that Starcraft 2 stays truer to the original in that the heroes are just the regular units with more hit points and damage?


I thought WC1+2 were great, but I was hoping they'd evolve the third game rather than just make cosmetic improvements. Then I played WC3. Oh dear. I gave up with it at about the half way stage.

Remember Total Annihilation - fantastic game, perhaps my no.2 just beneath Starcraft. They thought they'd try and change almost everything in the sequel TA: Kingdoms. That game was a stinker.

This is the problem with such massive genre defining games. Don't change anything and players get bored. Change things and players get angry. You can't win.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dirty Harry Potter wrote:
icarus wrote:
We already have starcraft2 its called "dawn of war: amiriete?
While the universes are similar, the gameplay is vastly different :S So, no.. not really :X


Shut up.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
SethP



Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 302
Location: Connecticut, USA



PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some sexy footage showing all kinds of fun new units and graphical prettiness:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?r=1&type=wmv&id=19827

The HD-ness makes for a helluva big download, but it's pretty cool to watch (all 22 minutes of it).

I think my favorite parts are anything with the mothership and the zerglings (they're just so... creepy and perfect). I was a little disappointed when the mothership finally popped, though. After all the pomp and circumstance for its arrival, its destruction seemed a bit understated. Eh, maybe I'm just too much of a sucker for big explosions.
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
zwzsg



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 15



PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
We already have starcraft2 its called "dawn of war: amiriete?
No. It is called Dark Planet: Battle for Natrolis.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Dirty Harry Potter



Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 16



PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dirty Harry Potter wrote:
SethP wrote:
Yeah, personally I'm glad they decided not to go World of Starcraft (yet, anyway).

I agree with Mark on this one, though. Starcraft is just such a great game it's hard to imagine how they could fix it up besides new graphics and a couple new units (although the ability to select more than 12 units would be REALLY nice).
You can select -a lot- of units in SC2 Very Happy 24 units at least. and it looks like you can have several "selection tabs" or whatever you'd call them. in the gameplay video there's a 1 besides the group of units selected (this might also just be that it's group 1, but every unit they've selected has this "1".) it looks like there's room for 5-6 of these numbers and the little box it's in. so.. 96 or 120 units selected at once? *shrug* of course I don't know for sure, but this is what sense I can make of it, when looking at the gameplay video.
Update: it seems that Blizzard has stated in a Q&A session that there's no limit on selecting units :S

Source:
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/790/790158p1.html

Another article on the Q&A session, not sure if it only has the same info or if there's a slight difference between the two.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790164p1.html
Back to top
View user's profile
Weeble
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 1143
Location: Glasgow, Scotland



PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm fairly optimistic for SC2 at the moment. I'm very pleased that they chose not to add new races. It seems to me that the more races/factions an RTS has, either the more similar they all are, or the more unbalanced they are. I love that almost all the units in Starcraft are genuinely useful and very few of them are similar to each other. The way the gameplay video focuses on the different ways units are strong or weak against each other gives me some confidence that they're really focusing on the right things.

One thing I'm curious about is whether they will retain the armour types and attack types. In Starcraft, every unit is classed as large, medium or small, and it's not always intuitive which one of them a unit will be. Weapons are classed as normal (uniform damage), explosive (full damage against large units, reduced damage against the others) and concussive (full damage against small units, and vastly reduced damage against others). This meant that in order to understand which units were effective against which others, you had to know how they were classed.

Then in Warcraft III they took this system and went bananas. Units could have light, medium, heavy, fortified or hero armour, or be unarmoured. (But unarmoured units still had armour ratings... Try not to get confused!) Damage types were melee, piercing, magic, spell,* siege, chaos and hero. There was a huge table explaining what was good against what, but it'd take ages to learn.

The thing is, it's just not very interesting. Units became counters to other units just because their attacks arbitrarily did extra damage against those units. I really hope they don't have all the complicated classifications of Warcraft III. I'm secretly hoping that they might do away with them altogether, and rely on unit mechanics alone to make counters. As the video demonstrates, warp rays are good against small numbers of big heavy units because they have weapons that do increasing damage the longer they fire for. That's much more interesting (and creates more tactical considerations) than just having them do +50% damage to big units.

* Spell and magic? Yes, spell was the type of damage that actual spells did, whereas magic was the type of damage that spellcasting units did with their normal attack. Some other units had magic damage attacks for balance purposes.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Dirty Harry Potter



Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 16



PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems they have retained some of it.. Well, the warp rays took only slightly less time to kill 1 marine than it took to kill a battlecruiser.

Though, that could also be because of their increasing-damage mechanic. and that they do really.. really lousy damage in the beginning, and then it rises quite quickly at some point to massive amounts of damage.

Hmm.. Can't say for sure, but doing completely away with it, and let it be "simulated" by numbers:Attack speed (or similar mechanics, like the warp ray, which in a sense is also limiting it's attack speed) would be a really good choice imho, in a gameplay sense it amounts to basically the same, but, it's much more intuitive for players.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus - if they took that intuitive approach AND allowed the player to control unit availability in multiplayer then I just might win a match online once (ever).

Let me explain - if I can easily work out how to use a small manageable selection of units then I can get proficient enough to play online in a reasonable amount of time! Sort of like "Starcraft lite".

I bet I'd still get whipped every time Sad

Is it just me or does the minimum bar skill level of RTS online gaming get set way too high? With fps like wolfenstein it took a while but eventually I could hold my own and win a few, but i've never got anywhere with any rts online. Before you say i'm just rubbish (and maybe you're right Wink ) I ended up playing huge amounts of LAN rts and seemed quite capable of winning a few. Getting a LAN party together is a bit tricky though so I haven't done it in a while.

Maybe it's a ranking problem?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Game Talk All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group