Starcraft 2

[Nachimir]

Relic entertainment is so incredibly underrated it's not fair :/

Relic's art is second to none. Unfortunately, they're not so good at balance as Blizzard. Patches for Dawn of War and all the expansions have lurched all over the place, sometimes even changing the fundamental nature of a race.

The DoW games were fun, but I got sick of relearning stuff every time a revision was released. A bunch of friends and I used to play it online regularly as a team, but most of them got so sick of the patches that by the time Dark Crusade came around they dropped it and started playing Starcraft again

I got the impression that their patches were often needed because there was too much stuff to test and thier QA wasn't picking up a lot of it. Like when Imperial Guard had to be patched because their bayonets turned out to be exceptionally good anti-building, or Kroot Hounds with shapers attached in the first version of DC: Due to the damage bonus, two packs could take down an entire base in about 30 seconds.

Things like this were regular, and did lead to some frustrating online play when people would just find a strong unit and churn it out. Even if you could counter, it just got boring.

wait for another year when they'll actually have a GAME to judge, instead of just a deliberately marginalised bundle of feature tidbits.

Indeed, I too was a bit "Huh?" at the basic nature of the screens, but am aware of how unreliable early publicity is. Did you see Dennis Dyack's interview about game marketing/schedules/previews on Gamasutra? Worth a read.

[LOPcagney]

I have only 2 things to say:

1) is that I admire Blizzard for waiting until they had something to show us before releasing information about Starcraft 2. I hate when developers get excited about a new game and announce it years before it's ever finished. At least we have something tangible to talk about as opposed to just gossiping about what-ifs.

2) I really, really hope that they deal with ballance better than CnC 3 did. Maybe it's because I used to play Starcraft all the time, as opposed to the CnC series, but I felt like NOD and GDI in CnC 3 were just simple reskinnings of the same vehicles. The tech trees were extreemly similar: for example, each faction had the super infantry guy who was immune to tiberium. It felt like they tried to match the factions 1 to 1, whereas the original Starcraft was great because the races played so differently. A single Zergling would be slaughterred by a single Marine, but a Marine was more expensive and took longer to build. Even at the first teir, the units had to be thought of differently. Other unique abilities and constructions, like the Zerg nydus canal, the sheilding powers of the Protoss, and the Terran's freedom with construction made each race radically different.

I hope Starcraft 2 doesn't do what CnC: 3 did and eliminate that aspect of the game.

[Roderick]

Did you ever play RTS games prior to Starcraft? Because that game was the first to have completely different races as opposed to 'reskinnings', as is used in almost every other. Certainly the Westwood RTS's have always been prone to such uninventive design. If anything, SC2 will push the uniqueness of the races even further.

[Jayel]

Whoa, hey, that's like knocking id because they aren't as inventive as Valve. Blizzard's great and all, but come on.

[SiN]

We already hate your game, again, is it? Here's an idea: why don't all the whiners here wait for another year when they'll actually have a GAME to judge, instead of just a deliberately marginalised bundle of feature tidbits.

Well, the game already looks quite far into development. It's been in development since the Frozen Throne was out, so that's like a good three years now. If they had any killer features, I think they would be implemented (and announced) by now. Looking at the website though, presents us with these features:

* Fast-paced, hard-hitting, tightly balanced competitive real-time strategy gameplay that recaptures and improves on the magic of the original game

* Three completely distinct races: Protoss, Terran, and Zerg

* New units and gameplay mechanics further distinguish each race

* Groundbreaking single-player "story-mode" campaign

* Vibrant new 3D-graphics engine with support for dazzling visual effects and massive unit and army sizes

* Full multiplayer support, with new competitive features and matchmaking utilities available through Battle.net

* Full map-making and scripting tools to give players incredible freedom in customizing and personalizing their gameplay experience

... and in the FAQ ...

How will StarCraft II be different from StarCraft?

StarCraft II will run on a vibrant new 3D-graphics engine that will be capable of rendering beautiful landscapes as well as massive individual units and army sizes.

We're also introducing a number of distinct new units to the Protoss, Terran, and Zerg, and even some of the familiar units that return in StarCraft II will have new tricks up their sleeves, which will give the game its own unique flavor.

In addition, Battle.net will be overhauled with some new and exciting features to enhance online play and competition, while the story-mode campaign will also offer some unique aspects for players who enjoy single-player content. We'll have more details on all these aspects in the months to come.

Soo ... new units and structures, the 2d game will be rendered in 3d, and ummmm, that's really about it. It was mentioned somewhere else in the FAQ that the game would use Havoc, which is pretty neat (and not mentioned anywhere else oddly enough). But can you honestly say that feature list strikes alot of confidence in SC2 turning into an innovative game? And more importantly, can you honestly say you'd be *this* excited about SC2 if it wasn't the sequel to Starcraft? I think the excitement for this game is pretty much riding on the quality of the first game, as opposed to the features presented in SC2.

I'm sure it'll be an excellent game, and a very polished game, and certainly a very balanced game, but it'll leave me cold because it'll still be using the same RTS format pioneered over a decade ago, albeit with some interesting tweaks.

I'd love to be proven wrong though, so I'm still keeping my eye on this one.

SiN

[DanJW]

What would an "innovative" RTS be exactly? The only one to have been called that in many years was Company of Heroes.

You forgot to mention the "new tricks" on that list though. Those two words might contain some fun stuff.

[LOPcagney]

Did you ever play RTS games prior to Starcraft? Because that game was the first to have completely different races as opposed to 'reskinnings', as is used in almost every other. Certainly the Westwood RTS's have always been prone to such uninventive design. If anything, SC2 will push the uniqueness of the races even further.

I hope so.

[elmuerte]

I think supcom had some innovative things

[BigJKO]

SiN, I think you're underestimating how much of a difference a 3D engine can do for StarCraft. I mean, maybe nothing we haven't seen in other RTSs but maybe something miles above what the original StarCraft team could even dream of doing. Does that mean it's innovative? Maybe not (again, we don't really know what they're doing behind the scenes) but Blizzard have always been a "perfect a formula" and not a "invent the formula" kind of developer.

I'm just excited because Blizzard always make simultaneous PC/Mac releases. First game I'll have played on my Mac in ages!

[andreadst]

I think supcom had some innovative things

Agreed...and I always found Total annihilation so much more interesting than the *craft series to begin with...

SiN, I think you're underestimating how much of a difference a 3D engine can do for StarCraft.

Actually, Warcraft 3 was 3D (and a good game by all means) but that didn't change so much right?

We already hate your game, again, is it? Here's an idea: why don't all the whiners here wait for another year when they'll actually have a GAME to judge, instead of just a deliberately marginalised bundle of feature tidbits.

SiN got my point through better than I did.

I am just pissed that a company like Blizzard (which has all the means to innovate at least a tiny little bit) would announce a feature list as uninspired as the one they did. Unless they want to revert the trend of hyping a game before release, the final product will probably be nothing more than a 3D SC...A really good game for sure, but come on. And especially since Supcom came out and proved that the classic RTS formula (gameplay) can still be improved, this new SC announcement seems so....LAST GEN!!

[BigJKO]

Actually, Warcraft 3 was 3D (and a good game by all means) but that didn't change so much right?

I said what a 3D engine can do for StarCraft, not what a 3D engine has done for RTS games.

You... YOU'RE LAST GEN!!

[Marek]

Ouch andreadst, I think he's insulting your parents!

[DanJW]

Agreed...and I always found Total annihilation so much more interesting than the *craft series to begin with...

Really? TA bores me to tears. Matter of taste I guess.

But yes the original starcraft remains the most balanced yet most asymmetrical RTS.

It's probably going to be said a lot by unimaginative games journalists, but maybe Blizzard will do with Starcraft 2 for RTS what WoW did for MMO's. The sum may be greater than the parts.

[andreadst]

you!.... you!

Did I mention that we italians have some kind of a problem with insults to parents? (who, in a many ways, are definitely OLD GEN...more RETRO actually, but you don't get to say that.)

[Roderick]

I just saw the Starcraft II movies that have been published so far, and they confirm what we already know: Starcraft II will be a sophistication of the first game more than a revolutionary new game.

Opinions that this is a bad thing are forgetting a crucial point; the time frame. Starcraft isn't a yearly franchise that gets churned out regularly. It's been nine years (nine years!) since the first game, and a sophistication -hell, even a REMAKE- would be well-deserved and justified.

Now onto the good stuff. I believe SC2 will rely a lot more on hardcore strategy. The movie shows clearly that the rock-paper-scissors mechanics have been taken to the extreme: every unit has a clear enemy and prey, and using that unit outside of its strengths will now be punished more severely than in the first game, which seemed slightly more lenient and forgiving in this respect. I don't think SC2 will feature any superfluous units that are never used. In the first game there were some units I hardly ever used; for Zerg the Defiler was largely left alone, for Terrans the Explorer and Goliath. I hope SC2 will force us to use all, but still leave room for improvisation and slightly less competitive play (I always like to just dick around in RTS's, and it would be a shame if this were to be impossible).

What is also a sophistication are the graphics. I think the shift to 3D will be a lot more important than we all think and extend beyond merely a cosmetic upgrade. The engine will provide Starcraft II with the atmosphere and richness it already tried to achieve and to a large level achieved in the first game. Blizzard will finally be able to take its style to its apotheosis, with swirling planets in the background instead of coloured dots in black space and insane effects such as the black hole distorting the models of enemy ships and sucking them in. The gothic science-fiction setting is going to reach a crescendo here.

In case you hadn't noticed; I'm fucking excited by these movies and it's all I can do to keep myself from running down the hallways here at the academy screaming bliss.

[Nick]

Wow, I read the first paragraph of most the posts so far. You misserable lot.

SC2 looks fantastic to me. The original was an awesome game with nice balancing, and if SC2 is just the same thing with some new stuff and fancy graphics then rock on!

From watching the gameplay vid I think it's mainly the little touches that make it seem so solid and polished, but that's not a bad thing at all. Zerg with more zerg, fancy abilities and a fairly obvious rock, paper, scissors system for countering units.

I'm quite confident that SC2 will be awesome, I don't see what's wrong with it really. Take something that has clearly worked and make it a bit better (hopefully).

[miffy495]

Don't get me wrong, I'm really pumped for this one. Warcraft III was the first RTS I actually bothered to beat, and this news has me replaying Starcraft yet again. It's just that I'm trying to keep myself from getting too hyped up and, as a result, disappointed. And again, I don't think the "I hope they have more than the standard kinds of tilesets" is too unreasonable a concern.

[SiN]

Okay, so I watched the gameplay video ... I'm feeling a bit better about the game, but not much.

The IK stuff on the colossus looked pretty cool. Mainly because it made the game actually feel a bit 3D, as opposed to the 2d-in-3d that warcraft3 was. Still, not by much.

The Havok physics looks criminally underused. To me, it looks like they're just using it for the debris when units/structures blow up. I guess it would kill too much bandwidth to use it for actual gameplay.

What really impressed me was the versatility of the units. Definitely liked how each unit genuinely felt unique. They all kinda did their own thing ... they didn't feel like a base unit with tweaked variables.

But ultimately, that's all there was to impress. SC2 looks like a game made for the fans, and only the fans. The fact that "x rushes" are encouraged pretty much confirms that for me. It's more hardcore, more complex, and ultimately, more of what SC fans are used to.

So it's a play-it-safe sequel by Blizzard then. Which I think is a shame. Most fans have flat-out said that if Blizzard put shit in a box, and labeled it "Starcraft 2" they'd buy it. Doing a by-the-numbers sequel seems like a huge wasted opportunity to try something different.

And more over, it also means that people like me who weren't fans of the original aren't even going to bother. I've never enjoyed a Blizz game (I even bought WC3, but didn't like it) so I was really hoping SC2 would be "the one". But alas, it doesn't look that way.

SiN

[LOPcagney]

I'm really excited about the announcement by Blizzard that this game would do innovative things with altitude and fog-of-war. This means that ground units will only reveal the areas of the map on the same level of ground as they are. That would be incredible. They can do so much.

[miffy495]

That would actually irritate the hell out of me. Why shouldn't a ground unit be able to look up, exactly? Are they entering a room in a horror movie and want us to see the drooling monster hanging from the ceiling before they do? If there's something in the way, sure, but even Advance Wars has that covered. If the things are so high up that the ground units can't see them, and vice-versa, with multiple battles going on at multiple altitudes then fair enough. Otherwise that sounds more like and annoyance than anything else.

[Roderick]

I can see how it could be annoying as well as bring a new shift in the gameplay. The most important places on the map wouldn't be only the building sites, but also the high terrain. Otherwise, just take air units with you

But from the video it was clear a lot more units on each side have the ability to scale terrain nowadays, so I estimate the annoyance will be minimal.

[Nick]

If the things are so high up that the ground units can't see them, and vice-versa, with multiple battles going on at multiple altitudes then fair enough. Otherwise that sounds more like and annoyance than anything else.

I don't think that ground units wouldn't be able to see air units. Just that they can't explore the sky/space enough to have it revealed on your map. The point is that it can probably be explained, and I imagine it would just add more tactical elements to the gameplay.

We know from the gameplay trailer that air units can see and attack ground units and I expect the oposite is true.

[miffy495]

If that's the case, then how is it any different from SC1? There are many maps with large areas that only flying units can reach. I'm sure Blizzard has put a lot more thought into this than me, and I'll probably still enjoy the outcome, but at the moment I can't visualize how this can be a big change without getting kinda logically dumb. Everything I can think of that would add to the experience and be fun is a bit different, but only marginally so compared to current RTSs.

Also, I'm not actually asking this of you expecting an answer. I realize that my questions are starting to sound a bit like the guy who hears a new scientific discovery during a conversation and starts grilling the person who said it as if they were the one who discovered it. Just putting the concern out there. To clarify, I'm really excited about Starcraft 2 and my brain just keeps coming up with reasons that it'll be underwhelming so that my hopes aren't unrealistic for the release.

[Roderick]

Maybe I can clarify things by reiterating what I heard here and there (mostly from Blizzard, but hey). In Starcraft 1, what happens is when Siege tanks begin to shoot at you from high ground, they reveal themselves so you can return fire. What I understood was that this won't happen. So it doesn't change that you still can't see high terrain, but what is changed is that you won't be able to magically see who is firing at you.

Sounds only logical, doesn't it?

[miffy495]

See that's the thing. That makes sense and would probably add to the game, but it's not really anything revolutionary. To use Advance Wars again, I can get slammed by artillery without having any idea where they are. Are they concealed in the woods that I can't see unless I'm one square away? Are they behind a mountain and using infantry as a spotter? Where is that bloody artillery?

Still seems like, with fog of war anyway, you can have big changes or you can have fun, not both.