Starcraft II coming in 2009!

[IEC]

Originally posted by: ibex333
Games like ground control and Tom Clancey's: End War eliminate base building altogether, and leave the player free to focus on the actual "strategy aspect" of the RTS. I hated how the the "correct" number of SCVs a player had in SC would often decide the game... That is not strategy.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "strategy" and "tactics"

Ground Control and End War are not RTS games, they are RTT (Real-Time Tactics). Tactics are what you use on the battlefield to best your opponent. Strategy is more of the overarching style of play you will adopt, such as "aggressive expansion" or "turtling up"

Is is said that tactics win battles, and strategies win wars.

 

[Bateluer]

Resource management should factor into any winning strategy in an RTS game. I have mixed feelings about the dumbing down of resource management in recent RTS titles myself.

Also, I really don't expect SC2 in 2009.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

C&C3 looks horrible, it looks like a generals mod which it essentially is, built on the same engine, the same engine thats still puttering along in RA3 albeit under a different name now. Starcraft II looks great, reminds me of warcraft III slightly which i like because i always thought warcraft III looked fantastic compared witht he other RTS's of the day. It still looks great actually.

This is total garbage. CNC3 looks far better than SCII. Warcraft III is a 2002 engine, and starcraft II looks like a slightly updated version of that, and your saying it looks better than a 2007 game. This is more related to general EA hate and Blizz fanboyism than whether the game looks better or not.

Oh thats right theres no custom maps... or unally ability you have to force fire... and to message other players you have to find out what their names are and /m "playername" or some BS.

Have you even played CNC3 online at any point? It has hundreds of custom maps in play and there is the ability to force fire, and you can message specific players. I will say that KW seriously sucked but the original was excellent.

Are we seriously judging how good games are based on their popularity now? Just because more people still play Starcraft or Counterstrike doesn't mean their better than CNC or Unreal Tournament.

I suppose by those standards Halo 3 and World of Warcraft must be the best games ever made.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
This is total garbage. CNC3 looks far better than SCII. Warcraft III is a 2002 engine, and starcraft II looks like a slightly updated version of that, and your saying it looks better than a 2007 game. This is more related to general EA hate and Blizz fanboyism than whether the game looks better or not.

No it dosent.

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Have you even played CNC3 online at any point? It has hundreds of custom maps in play and there is the ability to force fire, and you can message specific players. I will say that KW seriously sucked but the original was excellent.

Yes, the custom maps were terrible and no fun at all. At that point there was less than 400 people online regularly anyway because the game got boring and old very fast.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident

every blizzard game has lived up to and exceeded the hype that went along with it. I dont' see a reason why this would change now.

disagree, SC >>>>>> WC3

highly debatable. i enjoy tft alot and i think it has different elements that make it a better game than sc. if you dont like to micro your heroes though. you may like sc more. you cant say that wc3 sucked though.

 

[BudAshes]

Blizzards games are the best because they are user friendly and they have battle.net. Battle.net is the greatest thing that ever happened to rts.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident

every blizzard game has lived up to and exceeded the hype that went along with it. I dont' see a reason why this would change now.

disagree, SC >>>>>> WC3

highly debatable. i enjoy tft alot and i think it has different elements that make it a better game than sc. if you dont like to micro your heroes though. you may like sc more. you cant say that wc3 sucked though.

Amen to that, i liked SC more but WC3 and TFT are awesome games with a well done campaign and an in depth storyline. Hopefully SC2 will expand on the story even more.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident

every blizzard game has lived up to and exceeded the hype that went along with it. I dont' see a reason why this would change now.

disagree, SC >>>>>> WC3

highly debatable. i enjoy tft alot and i think it has different elements that make it a better game than sc. if you dont like to micro your heroes though. you may like sc more. you cant say that wc3 sucked though.

i prefer the giant armies of SC as opposed to centering around a hero

 

[ibex333]

Again, like I said, I hope that everything I said is wrong, since I am very much hoping Blizzard will surprise me yet again. However...

Originally posted by: Maximilian


C&C3 and KW sucked, C&C as a franchise has gone down the toilet and inst even in the same league as blizzards games. Besides, innovating for the sake of having "something new" is just stupid.

And not innovating for the sake of staying on the safe side is just as stupid. The original Starcraft was ALL innovation. No other game back then did the same thing. Not even close. Why not do the same thing with SCII? I mean.. Judging from the screenies and the videos, there's barely any innovation in SCII at all! Aside from a few new units there's pretty much NONE!

Originally posted by: Maximilian
C&C3 looks horrible, it looks like a generals mod which it essentially is, built on the same engine, the same engine thats still puttering along in RA3 albeit under a different name now. Starcraft II looks great, reminds me of warcraft III slightly which i like because i always thought warcraft III looked fantastic compared witht he other RTS's of the day. It still looks great actually.

First of all, did you even play C&C3? I mean really played, not tried it out a little and dismissed as an epic fail as opposed to old school westwood offerings? I didnt like C&C3 too much when I 1st tried it, but then I realized that for once, EA actually did a descent job. As for the engine, are you SURE it's the same one? It looks a whole lot better to me than generals did... And concerning your comparison to warcraft... It's funny, because for me that's actually a problem. I think that warcraft has no business in starcraft in any way shape or form. I don't like the fact that warcraft devs are working on starcraft and it's probably the reason for the cartoon like graphics... I guess I hate it for all the same reasons you like it!

Originally posted by: Maximilian
So stick to real time tactics then... dont play real time strategy games if you dont like the way they work. CoH and DoW are different types of games, relic havent innovated with the capture the flag system to get resources, they have simply done things differently. I like CoH and i have a blast playing it from time to time but in no way should starcraft take any lessons from it and CoH likewise should take no lessons from starcraft, they are excellent games apart but they have nothing to learn from each other. Same applies for DoW.

Now here is where you are wrong. The way you make this sound is that basically DoW and CoH are NOT RTS games! Resource gathering is not how RTS games work. Who ever wrote these unspoken "rules" you seem to be referring to? Who says it should always be so? In my book "capture the point" is just as good, and better when compared to resource gathering. What we have here, is a difference of opinion - nothing less nothing more. Why try and pass it as something that a "given"? And if relic hasn't innovated with their "capture the flag" system, then name some RTS games that came before that had the same system please... I don't know any. As for SC and CoH "learning from each other".... Well, I think there is something to learn and you don't. That's your right.

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Starcraft isnt just this perfectly balanced game that crazy koreans play and watch on TV, theres a lot more too it! Just a few hours ago i was playing "the phantom" a custom map on starcraft, i manipulated the two other zerg players to help me wipe out the two protoss players one at a time, neither of them was the phantom so at the end my two allies went for eachother and one of them died, he was the phantom, it was a good game. None of this would be possible without the ability to unally or unshare vision or message individual people within a game. Try that in C&C3! Oh thats right theres no custom maps... or unally ability you have to force fire... and to message other players you have to find out what their names are and /m "playername" or some BS. Starcraft is a masterpiece of RTS gaming and having fun, starcraft II will more than likely exceed expectations, blizzard has never failed to do that yet. Starcraft II will do for the franchise what warcraft III did for warcraft, bring the graphics up a level and expand the storyline significantly whilest continuing to offer the same awesome gameplay and custom map options of the previous game. Comparing this game to C&C3 in any way is just crazy....

TBH, I'm actually amused by what you said about the chat options... How is that relevant in this day and age, where just about everyone uses VOICE to communicate online? When most games try to integrate VOiP more and more, you refer to the ability to text message individual people as an advantage, and one of the key features of a game... I don't know about you, but I would always prefer to say something as opposed to typing it. C&C has integrated voice chat which is FREE! I think it's just as cool as the individual text messaging options you speak of.
As for custom maps, I don't see how that's Blizzard's accomplishment... It's the fans that do this stuff, not Blizzard devs. (unless that phantom map you mention was done by Blizz) CS has been around long enough to build a devoted player community, many of whom are willing to create these custom maps. Who knows, maybe after 10 years there will be custom maps available for C&C3. Unlikely, but possible! And, again, what's important for you is not important for me. I don't like custom maps and mods, because I believe in playing games the way they were ORIGINALLY intended by designers in that exact state and condition. Either way, I don't see it as something that can be used when talking about SC's qualities. Above all, I'd like to say again, that I loved the original SC - I have nothing against it! It's just that I'd like to see none of it, at least for the most part, in SCII.

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: ibex333
Games like ground control and Tom Clancey's: End War eliminate base building altogether, and leave the player free to focus on the actual "strategy aspect" of the RTS. I hated how the the "correct" number of SCVs a player had in SC would often decide the game... That is not strategy.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "strategy" and "tactics"

Ground Control and End War are not RTS games, they are RTT (Real-Time Tactics). Tactics are what you use on the battlefield to best your opponent. Strategy is more of the overarching style of play you will adopt, such as "aggressive expansion" or "turtling up"

Is is said that tactics win battles, and strategies win wars.

You actually make a very good point. Well said indeed. But I don't see how that has anything to do with what I was saying. The way you make it sound, is like I'm saying that RTT games are BETTER than RTS, and you are saying that RTS is BETTER than RTT. I certainly hope that's not the case for either of us. I am comparing individual games. Not genres, not strategy to tactics and vise versa. I'd like to make that very clear. When I'm saying that I think that DoW's resource system is better that SC's, I'm talking about how that is better, and more convenient for me in the context of GAMES. I'd very much prefer not to go into the discussion of differences between strategy and tactics, however flawed my understanding of both may be. This brings me to another point... If Ground Control and End War are not RTS games, then what are CoH and Dow? You completely left those out when proving your point to me...

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: ibex333
And not innovating for the sake of staying on the safe side is just as stupid. The original Starcraft was ALL innovation. No other game back then did the same thing. Not even close. Why not do the same thing with SCII? I mean.. Judging from the screenies and the videos, there's barely any innovation in SCII at all! Aside from a few new units there's pretty much NONE!

No its not, its being loyal to the fans.

Originally posted by: ibex333
First of all, did you even play C&C3? I mean really played, not tried it out a little and dismissed as an epic fail as opposed to old school westwood offerings? I didnt like C&C3 too much when I 1st tried it, but then I realized that for once, EA actually did a descent job. As for the engine, are you SURE it's the same one? It looks a whole lot better to me than generals did... And concerning your comparison to warcraft... It's funny, because for me that's actually a problem. I think that warcraft has no business in starcraft in any way shape or form. I don't like the fact that warcraft devs are working on starcraft and it's probably the reason for the cartoon like graphics... I guess I hate it for all the same reasons you like it!

It is the same engine, the SAGE the strategy action game engine that EA made from W3D the thing that westwood used in renegade. It sucked back then and age has not been kind to it, it still sucks now.

I played C&C3 quite a lot, i destroyed many people in 1v1's played 2v2's and 3v3's with friends against random people. It got old really fast, C&C3 does not have the staying power that RA2 had and it has even less than what generals had, which is the reason why most people quit playing. There is absolutely no innovation in it, units can reverse, thats about it. Its a regression fron generals which itsself was a regression from RA2.

Originally posted by: ibex333
Now here is where you are wrong. The way you make this sound is that basically DoW and CoH are NOT RTS games! Resource gathering is not how RTS games work. Who ever wrote these unspoken "rules" you seem to be referring to? Who says it should always be so? In my book "capture the point" is just as good, and better when compared to resource gathering. What we have here, is a difference of opinion - nothing less nothing more. Why try and pass it as something that a "given"? And if relic hasn't innovated with their "capture the flag" system, then name some RTS games that came before that had the same system please... I don't know any. As for SC and CoH "learning from each other".... Well, I think there is something to learn and you don't. That's your right.

They are RTS games, theyre different though. Why the hell do you think every RTS game should be the same, that would be totally freakin boring! Theres nothing "better" about capturing flags instead of gathering ore or mining minerals, its just different is all, theres nothing innovative about it. You think starcraft should be all about capturing the flag?? What are you smoking...

Originally posted by: ibex333
TBH, I'm actually amused by what you said about the chat options... How is that relevant in this day and age, where just about everyone uses VOICE to communicate online? When most games try to integrate VOiP more and more, you refer to the ability to text message individual people as an advantage, and one of the key features of a game... I don't know about you, but I would always prefer to say something as opposed to typing it. C&C has integrated voice chat which is FREE! I think it's just as cool as the individual text messaging options you speak of.
As for custom maps, I don't see how that's Blizzard's accomplishment... It's the fans that do this stuff, not Blizzard devs. (unless that phantom map you mention was done by Blizz) CS has been around long enough to build a devoted player community, many of whom are willing to create these custom maps. Who knows, maybe after 10 years there will be custom maps available for C&C3. Unlikely, but possible! And, again, what's important for you is not important for me. I don't like custom maps and mods, because I believe in playing games the way they were ORIGINALLY intended by designers in that exact state and condition. Either way, I don't see it as something that can be used when talking about SC's qualities. Above all, I'd like to say again, that I loved the original SC - I have nothing against it! It's just that I'd like to see none of it, at least for the most part, in SCII.

Dude noone spoke in C&C3... seriously hardly anyone ever said anything over the voip. The people who are really into the game used teamspeak or that ventrillo thing instead anyway so voip isnt all that important.

The custom maps are all down to blizzard, they are the result of an extremely easy to use map editor with so many useful and easy to use options. Keyword here is easy. C&C3's worldbuilder is a piece of garbage, its nowhere near as good as the starcraft editor, and in 10 years noone will be playing C&C3, its a pretty dead game right now anyways.

Games the original way they are meant to be played get boring, noone would be playing starcraft online today apart from the super hardcore weirdos if it wasent for custom maps. Most people dont play the actual game anymore, nobody whos been with it since the beginning anyways, maybe you dont like custom content but the rest of us starcraft fans do, and it keeps the game alive long after its release.

 

[sash1]

it's blizzard. i expect delays

 

[JF060392]

not at all excited. especially after all the delays. what kind of marketing is this? it is still going to look like WC3. besides whats the good in only being able to select 12 units.

actually there is some good in Starcraft 2. hopefully it whores less bandwidth than WOW so that i can actually use the internet at my school. i will be quite angry if this game doesnt get the WOW fatasses off of it.

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
No its not, its being loyal to the fans.

That and staying on the safe side. Not that I can blame them for it - it's their money on the line, but it's lame IMO. Did Witcher devs stay on the safe side? No. Which is why their game is so damn good. They could have made another generic RPG, sort of like the guys behind Space Siege did... But no! They took a risk and succeeded. They even pumped up the nudity and violence, despite the fact that there are many people who try to eradicate that from games these days...

Originally posted by: Maximilian
It is the same engine, the SAGE the strategy action game engine that EA made from W3D the thing that westwood used in renegade. It sucked back then and age has not been kind to it, it still sucks now.

Didnt know that. As for the engine "sucking"...Well that's just your opinion. There are many people who feel C&C3 looks great. And Generals looked very good when it 1st game out too. Only thing is, I was not a big fan of the "green" alien like soldiers.

Originally posted by: Maximilian
I played C&C3 quite a lot, i destroyed many people in 1v1's played 2v2's and 3v3's with friends against random people. It got old really fast, C&C3 does not have the staying power that RA2 had and it has even less than what generals had, which is the reason why most people quit playing. There is absolutely no innovation in it, units can reverse, thats about it. Its a regression fron generals which itsself was a regression from RA2.

I disagree. There was plenty of innovation.

1)There was many new abilities and units.
2)Infantry is built as squads instead of one at a time. This makes things a lot better.
3)Voice chat
4)3rd race. Maybe not very well implemented, but they tried!
5)Decent videos, good actors, decent campaign.
6)Easier match making system. Simple to find an opponent.
7)Greatly improved gfx as opposed to previous incarnations.
8)The controls somehow felt smoother... I sucked in most other RTS online, but here I was pretty good, at least against my friends. Because when I issued commands, and moved my units, everything happened EXACTLY how I intended. Somehow that is NOT the case in most other RTS except for DoW and CoH, where I am also good enough to at least do what I plan to do. For example, In Warcraft 3, my army would be slaughtered before I could even have a chance to realize what's going on. My hero would always be gone in mere 3-5 seconds, and after the hero would be dead, the game was as good as over, since the enemy hero already had that much more experience than me, which would result in him having a clear advantage during the next skirmish. I hated that. It's like I was never even given the chance to do anything cause everything happened way too fast. The RTS games that I like play just as fast overall, yet somehow, I manage to do everything just fine.

Originally posted by: Maximilian
They are RTS games, theyre different though. Why the hell do you think every RTS game should be the same, that would be totally freakin boring! Theres nothing "better" about capturing flags instead of gathering ore or mining minerals, its just different is all, theres nothing innovative about it. You think starcraft should be all about capturing the flag?? What are you smoking...

Nah.. You are missing the point. I'm not saying SCII should be the same with any other RTS. I'm merely pointing out that other RTS games have interesting solutions which are IMO, better than collecting resources the "old fashioned way". That's why I was hoping they'd try something new this time around. I only referred to games like Dow and CoH to give an example of what is "new". Hell, if you really think about it, I doubt you can show me any fairly modern RTS game where resources are gathered the way they were in SC or WCIII.

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Dude noone spoke in C&C3... seriously hardly anyone ever said anything over the voip. The people who are really into the game used teamspeak or that ventrillo thing instead anyway so voip isnt all that important.

Well, VoIP is still a relatively "new" feature to many and people are not really used to it. Doesn't mean it's something no one cares about. Give it time!
And even if it is indeed relatively useless at this point, that doesnt mean it's not "innovation"!

Originally posted by: Maximilian
The custom maps are all down to blizzard, they are the result of an extremely easy to use map editor with so many useful and easy to use options. Keyword here is easy. C&C3's worldbuilder is a piece of garbage, its nowhere near as good as the starcraft editor, and in 10 years noone will be playing C&C3, its a pretty dead game right now anyways.

You make a good point. But without people actually making custom maps, it wouldn't matter how good that editor is. It's a 50/50 thing really.

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Games the original way they are meant to be played get boring, noone would be playing starcraft online today apart from the super hardcore weirdos if it wasent for custom maps. Most people dont play the actual game anymore, nobody whos been with it since the beginning anyways, maybe you dont like custom content but the rest of us starcraft fans do, and it keeps the game alive long after its release.

Again, good point, but this has little to do with my main idea, which is "From what I've seen so far, SCII seems to me like just an updated SC. It doesn't look like a whole new game. At least not yet."

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: ibex333
And not innovating for the sake of staying on the safe side is just as stupid. The original Starcraft was ALL innovation. No other game back then did the same thing. Not even close. Why not do the same thing with SCII? I mean.. Judging from the screenies and the videos, there's barely any innovation in SCII at all! Aside from a few new units there's pretty much NONE!

Blizzard isn't going to innovate SC2's game play for 2 major reasons. Like counterstrike it's an established tournament game and when you've got that kind of game, the challenge is to refresh it without destroying that audience. This is a good thing because it means they already have an audience and don't have to appeal to every child in the world with excruciatingly dumbed down features. The second reason is because they've already innovated WC3. They need SC2 to remain as the tried and true classic RTS game play which has faded largely over the years.

There will be some innovations in SC2, but they most likely won't be out of the box gameplay. For instance, modding will be improved and what people can do with the SC2 engine will be an impressive piece of it all.

Rule of thumb, keep sequels true to the source, innovate with new IPs.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: ibex333
I disagree. There was plenty of innovation.

1)There was many new abilities and units.
2)Infantry is built as squads instead of one at a time. This makes things a lot better.
3)Voice chat
4)3rd race. Maybe not very well implemented, but they tried!
5)Decent videos, good actors, decent campaign.
6)Easier match making system. Simple to find an opponent.
7)Greatly improved gfx as opposed to previous incarnations.
8)The controls somehow felt smoother... I sucked in most other RTS online, but here I was pretty good, at least against my friends. Because when I issued commands, and moved my units, everything happened EXACTLY how I intended. Somehow that is NOT the case in most other RTS except for DoW and CoH, where I am also good enough to at least do what I plan to do. For example, In Warcraft 3, my army would be slaughtered before I could even have a chance to realize what's going on. My hero would always be gone in mere 3-5 seconds, and after the hero would be dead, the game was as good as over, since the enemy hero already had that much more experience than me, which would result in him having a clear advantage during the next skirmish. I hated that. It's like I was never even given the chance to do anything cause everything happened way too fast. The RTS games that I like play just as fast overall, yet somehow, I manage to do everything just fine.

1. With a new game thats expected, starcraft 2 also features new abilities and units, in fact almost every single RTS game sequal i have ever played has had new abilities and units over its predecessor.

2. Its not better, its different, this ties in with the resource gathering point i made, just different not better and its purely for eye candy.

3. The first C&C to have voice chat, well really it is about time.... starcraft 2 also has voice chat, nobody on the blizz forum is all that hyped about it though.

4. Tiberian sun firestorm had a partial 3rd race, and RA2 yuris revenge was the first to impliment a proper 3rd race, generals also had a 3rd race, if C&C3 was "innovating" here it would have a 4th race. I wouldnt call extra races "innovating" though because i just see it as an added bonus, it might be innovative if they are balanced excellently or the third race was very different but on its own a 3rd race is nothing special, especially the copy/paste scrin from C&C3. Pretty generic aliens imo.

5. RA1 also had this back in 1996 or whenever it came out.

6. For those who 1v1 yeah, but on the other hand C&C3's online used gamespy, which is a horrible laggy POS that would cause the game to freeze up half the time or wouldnt let you log on etc. The whole online component is a sidestep from what was in RA2 and what was in generals.

7. Maybe yeah, but compared with other RTS games on the market it lagged behind.

8. Well i think thats just you rather than the controls, warcraft III is a very different game to the C&C series, i suck at warcraft as well but the controls in it are fine, its simply i dont know what to build or what hero is good and i cant be bothered to learn it.

Originally posted by: ibex333
Nah.. You are missing the point. I'm not saying SCII should be the same with any other RTS. I'm merely pointing out that other RTS games have interesting solutions which are IMO, better than collecting resources the "old fashioned way". That's why I was hoping they'd try something new this time around. I only referred to games like Dow and CoH to give an example of what is "new". Hell, if you really think about it, I doubt you can show me any fairly modern RTS game where resources are gathered the way they were in SC or WCIII.

Well um C&C generals has a resource model similar to starcrafts, resource collectors collecting cash/minerals from a limited supply area, such areas are dotted around the map. RA3 has a resource model similar to C&C generals.... The old stuff grows along the ground and is then scooped up by harvester is dead now unfortunately which is a damn shame because that is part of what made up C&C. There arent many RTS games with the same resource model.

RA1/RA2/C&CTD/C&CTS/C&C3 - Scoop up resources from the ground and bring it back

DoW/CoH - Capture flags

Starcraft/Generals/RA3/Act of war/Warcraft II/III/Age of empires I/II/III - Take resources from a set limited quantity supply building or resource cache, maybe chop down trees

There is no "old fashioned" way to collect resources only different ways. The flags in DoW and CoH are essentially tech oil derricks with a territory assigned to them when you think about it. The method of resource collection depends on the type of game you create, theres nothing new and flashy about capture the flag, its just different and since CoH and DoW is all about small unit quantitys and micro it makes sense to not bother too much with advanced resource gather operations. Starcraft and many other games are not like this.

Originally posted by: ibex333
Well, VoIP is still a relatively "new" feature to many and people are not really used to it. Doesn't mean it's something no one cares about. Give it time!
And even if it is indeed relatively useless at this point, that doesnt mean it's not "innovation"!

Ok give it time, i will probably be yelling down the mic at people i dont like in starcraft 2 but as far as VoIP and C&C3 are concerned it might as well not be there since noone plays it anymore.

Originally posted by: ibex333
You make a good point. But without people actually making custom maps, it wouldn't matter how good that editor is. It's a 50/50 thing really.

A good editor means people will make good fun maps. Just look at that DoTA thing that warcraft III has, thats what happens when you have a good editor, its taken off and from what i gather is like its own game now rather than just a map/mod. Wheres C&C3's DoTA?

Originally posted by: ibex333
Again, good point, but this has little to do with my main idea, which is "From what I've seen so far, SCII seems to me like just an updated SC. It doesn't look like a whole new game. At least not yet."

Well no offence but your idea of a "whole new game" seems to be simply switching the status quo in SC to something "new" just for the sake of having a "new" thing in the game regardless of whether or not the game would suck with the "new" idea. I can guarantee you that capture the flag resource collection and an entirely new unit list scrapping everything (which destroys the lore anyways, some of us do care about the deep story present in most blizzard titles, a good story, the thing C&C used to have before EA took over it and made it suck) would not fly with the starcraft fans and would not fly with newcomers to the franchise because the game would just suck, it would be up there with that daikatana thing and spore as one of the biggest letdowns of all time.

 

[PiMpY]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: ibex333
And not innovating for the sake of staying on the safe side is just as stupid. The original Starcraft was ALL innovation. No other game back then did the same thing. Not even close. Why not do the same thing with SCII? I mean.. Judging from the screenies and the videos, there's barely any innovation in SCII at all! Aside from a few new units there's pretty much NONE!

Blizzard isn't going to innovate SC2's game play for 2 major reasons. Like counterstrike it's an established tournament game and when you've got that kind of game, the challenge is to refresh it without destroying that audience. This is a good thing because it means they already have an audience and don't have to appeal to every child in the world with excruciatingly dumbed down features. The second reason is because they've already innovated WC3. They need SC2 to remain as the tried and true classic RTS game play which has faded largely over the years.

There will be some innovations in SC2, but they most likely won't be out of the box gameplay. For instance, modding will be improved and what people can do with the SC2 engine will be an impressive piece of it all.

Rule of thumb, keep sequels true to the source, innovate with new IPs.

Ditto right here.

Starcraft has maintained longevity due to it's HIGHLY balanced gameplay between 3 distinct and completely different races and between so many different levels of skill.
Online of course.

 

[dclapps]

A bit of an update:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267

 

[newb111]

Originally posted by: dclapps
A bit of an update:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267

Sounds like we'll be getting the same game as we got in SC1, but split into 3 so they can make more $$$.

Oh well, on the bright side it should hopefully get it out faster.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: dclapps
A bit of an update:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267

so how in the hell will online work? Will we have access to all 3 races from the beginning? Or will everyone have to be the same race until teh expansions come out.

I'd say many if not most will buy the game for online play only.

 

[newb111]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: dclapps
A bit of an update:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267

so how in the hell will online work? Will we have access to all 3 races from the beginning? Or will everyone have to be the same race until teh expansions come out.

I'd say many if not most will buy the game for online play only.

I would guess that all 3 races are available for multiplayer, but its the singleplayer campaigns that are what you buy later.

Might be a benefit if you don't care about singleplayer anyway.

 

[Dorkenstein]

This "trilogy" episodic thing is a disappointment to me.

 

[I4AT]

I didn't even finish the single player campaign for the original, just wasn't interested. I'll be buying SC2 for the multiplayer only, so hopefully that part of the game will be complete and ready with the first release.

 

[jdelrio22]

I can definitely understand the direction they are going in terms of magnitude. If you think about it, the first Starcraft had what, 10 levels for each campaign? Pretty epic story but Blizzard is going for huge on this one. I look forward to what they come out with

 

[Eeezee]

I'm pleased that we're looking at 90+ levels for Starcraft 2, even if it's spread out over 3 games. Here's a question - do we have to buy each game separately? Are they downloadable expansion packs? Are they free?

No matter the scenario, count me in. Blizzard hasn't failed me yet

Edit: Also, I'm going to end up spending most of my time playing the Use Map Settings mode in multiplayer. This was my favorite mode in both SC and WC3.

In fact, those are the only two games that where I spent a lot of time playing multiplayer because it was so great.

 

[Zenoth]

The most expensive RTS story arc in video gaming history brought to you by one of the best developers. How nice is it, as long as you never let your fans "down" in your history you can make them buy whatever you want however you like, talk about fair business, after they do it other developers will follow and they will say "yeah because the scope of our story is so grand that one product can't handle it".

Seriously it's about the most absurd excuse I've ever heard about to get more money, and that it comes from Blizzard somehow does surprise me, and certainly disappoints to say the least.