Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1129
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

A sequel to the only RTS I could really enjoy was just announced.

Yep. It's true.
Knowing Blizzard, it should be released by 2012. Oh well. If it's half as good as the first, it'll be worth the wait.

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

'bout fraking time.


____________________________

Nillo
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 01-04-2004
IP: Logged

I hope they add a more powerful world editor this time. Making RPGs in Starcraft was a pain.

____________________________
“Folks say that if you listen real close at the height of the full moon, when the wind is blowin' off Nantucket Sound from the nor' east and the dogs are howlin' for no earthly reason, you can hear the awful screams of the crew of the 'Ellie May,' a sturdy whaler Captained by John McTavish; for it was on just such a night when the rum was flowin' and, Davey Jones be damned, big John brought his men on deck for the first of several screaming contests.”

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Pinnacle wrote:
If it's half as good as the first, it'll be worth the wait.

Aye Aye to that. Even if all the do is port all the races and units from the original, and then add the UI features in Sup Com(like massive zoom and waypoint system), I'll be drooling.

---

[Last edited by NiroZ at 05-29-2007 10:24 AM]

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

Well, they already had mastered the world editor in --

....

Alright, I'll buy the game if the CPU requirements aren't frigging absurd.

...cause pappa needs his tower defense.

Doom
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3226
Registered: 07-05-2004
IP: Logged

This is what I spent my morning on as well. Checking the news updates every few minutes from the moment the event started. Starcraft is still the best RTS I've played. High expectations here.

Banjooie wrote:
Alright, I'll buy the game if the CPU requirements aren't frigging absurd.

Bah, that would be a sign that it's time to upgrade

Edit:
http://www.starcraft2.com/ started working a little while ago as well.

---

[Last edited by Doom at 05-19-2007 03:02 PM]

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

I hoped it would be more different from original Starcraft. But I see the same plastic graphics. And it looks like they have even more arbitrary unit relations. There's no division between infantry and vehicles in Starcraft, tanks are actually good ad killing infantry. There are lots of arbitrary counters to memorise. I prefer strategy games which reward players able to adapt.

My gripes about Starcraft:
- very poor scouting options
- fast units, very short firing range, small vision radius. As a result, positioning and formations are pointless.

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

Oneiromancer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2936
Registered: 03-29-2003
IP: Logged

Am I surprised? No. Am I excited? Not really. I have not finished an RTS since Dune 2, and that could just be faulty memory. I guess I also haven't finished a turn-based strategy game in a long time either, since Warlords 2, but at least I seem to enjoy those more.

____________________________
"He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder." -- Tad Williams

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

b0rsuk wrote:
My gripes about Starcraft:
- very poor scouting options
- fast units, very short firing range, small vision radius. As a result, positioning and formations are pointless.

I'm not even good at Starcraft, but I'm pretty sure that the game is entirely based around micro. Formations give you no bonus because every single one of your guys should be spread the hell out and moving almost nigh constantly.

I've seen the Korean guys play it, so.

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

b0rsuk wrote:
But I see the same plastic graphics.

I could've sworn the article mentioned that they hadn't done all the new art yet, that they were still just doing the code and had temporary graphics or something.


____________________________

Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1129
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

I only play against the computer, since I get my *** handed to me on Battle.net. It's still fun. I can't micro at all, though.

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

[Last edited by Pinnacle at 05-19-2007 09:28 PM]

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

At least it (hopefully) won't have heroes and this creepy creeping.

Another thing I hated about original Starcraft: only 10 units on the screen at a time. Ok, so I'm exaggerating a little, but look how BIG the units look on screen. I really hope most of those screens are just zoomed in. Original SC forced you to scroll the screen constantly.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/imgs_1.html


____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 05-19-2007 09:36 PM]

Doom
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3226
Registered: 07-05-2004
IP: Logged

From what I've seen, there don't seem to be heroes *or* creeps.

One thing that adds support for larger armies is the fact that unit selection will no longer be limited to 12 in a group. Probably won't be a huge change there overall, but at least this removes a good deal of hotkeying. And the zerg are of course an exception. I doubt you'll see many mid-late game zerg attacks with 10 units at the screen.

If you didn't like the original Starcraft, so be it. It's not unlikely at all that this'll be a miss for you as well. I got the picture Blizzard is intentionally trying not to wander too far from the origin. Trying to please the die-hard BW fans who may not want a change, making the transition easier, etc.

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

That's strange, because Both Warcraft2 and Warcraft3 were very successful, yet very different games.

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

Doom
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3226
Registered: 07-05-2004
IP: Logged

I somewhat have to agree with that.

Here's the exact quote I just dug up (from this article at IGN):

Questions were put out asking why StarCraft 2 seemed to play so similarly to the original. Blizzard responded by saying they understood there were some similarities, and that's because they wanted to keep its base gameplay mainly the same, as they're trying to meet the expectations of both professional gamers and casual alike.

I can't really compare this with moving from WC 2 to WC 3 because I didn't play the series too much before the third game.

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

In Warcraft2, there were only Orcs and Humans. Most units were just carbon copies of each other. There was third resource, Oil, available only on water.

Grunt = Swordsman
Elven Archer = Troll Axethrower (archer has marginally longer range, but slightly lower firepower)
catapult = balista
Knight = Ogre (upgrade: paladins get healing and something else; ogre mages get landmines, bloodlust, eye of killrog; all spells have to be cast manually!!!)
Elven Destroyer = Troll Destroyer (or Orcish, whatever)
Battleship = Juggernaut
Identical transport ships.
Oil harvesters work the same except for appearance.
Mage =/= Death Knight (Death Knight was just another caster)
Identical submarines. Identical air scouts. Gryphon Rider = Dragon.
Watch towers (arrows) were identical, same for cannon towers. Players can build walls, but 1 square at a time, extremely time consuming.
Drarven Demolition Team = Goblin Sappers (suicide bombers able to destroy forests and mountains)
No heroes.

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 05-19-2007 10:51 PM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

From the interview on Gamespy, I get a feeling one major consideration for Blizzard here is the professional playing leagues in Korea - I think that's a major source of income for them, and as far as I know, Warcraft III didn't catch on nearly as well there.

It's also worth remembering that Blizzard games often change a lot between original announcement and the released product. Warcraft III is a good example of this. It may be that by the time SC2 is released, it will be more different than SC1 than is apparent now.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

Yeah, Blizzard can't screw with Starcraft too hard--South Koreans play it practically like a national sport.

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

StarCraft2 is going to dominate the RTS genre for next several years. But not because it's perfect or anything. It's not much of a strategy game, even. I'd call it Arcade/Tactics game with elements of Strategy. Arcade element is really strong in Starcraft and Warcraft3, you can't play these games without fast reflexes ! Ironically, Diablo2 remains the slowest Blizzard game. There's only so much clicking you can do at a time in D2. Starcraft and Warcraft3, on the other hand, give big edge to the player who can click faster, manage several units individually at the same time etc. In Diablo2, you have only 1 unit to manage.
Starcraft2 is going to dominate because it faces no serious competition. That's a bit sad.

The most immediate competition you could think about is C&C games, formerly by Westwood, now EA. C&C serries degenerated quite a bit. EA was never known for long time support, or any support actually. Every single of their RTS games has some fatal flaws, usually bad, unpatched multiplayer balance.
C&C 3 in particular is a classic example of what PC gamers call a dumbed down console game. The game is primitive to the point where top players have average match duration of 5 minutes. It ends inevitably with tank spamming. Note that 5 minutes is average, this means some matches can actually last less.
For me, top C&C games were (for different reasons): the first one, RA2, Tiberian Sun, Generals.

Supreme Commander is a worthy successor to Total Annihilation, and it's a game with big strategic depth. The problem is the same as with TA. It lacks character. It has lots of blocky vehicles, no infantry, rather bland terrain. Storyline and sides of conflict are very cliche (The empire, rebels, and religious fanatics). It doesn't help that the sides are fairly similar to each other.
These flaws mean that the game can be enjoyed only by people who can look past graphics and unattractive visual design. People appreciate gameplay and depth over all. There are fewer of them than you think.

Truth is, the word innovative is very rarely used to describe a game made by EA or Blizzard. Relic does innovate quite a lot. It's the company who made Homeworld1,2 , Warhammer : Dawn of War, Winter Assautl, Dark Crusade, (each expansion introducing significant gameplay changes and innovation), and finally, Company of Heroes. I only played Homeworld2, but I heard each of these games feels distinctive in terms of both character and gameplay. Each game uses good parts of previous one, improves on its flaws, and has something new to show. It really puzzles me why Relic's games aren't as successful as Blizzard's. Could it be unsufficient marketing ?
I think that if anyone can topple Starcraft dominance in RTS field, it is a new game by Relic.

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 05-20-2007 11:33 AM]

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

b0rsuk wrote:
For me, top C&C games were (for different reasons): the first one, RA2, Tiberian Sun, Generals.

Yeah Red Alert 2 was awesome. It's the only RTS that I played every single mission available (including the expansion), and them some. Tiberian sun was a rather large let however, and I tried to get into Generals but the storyline made me cringe.

Supreme Commander is a worthy successor to Total Annihilation, and it's a game with big strategic depth. The problem is the same as with TA. It lacks character. It has lots of blocky vehicles, no infantry, rather bland terrain. Storyline and sides of conflict are very cliche (The empire, rebels, and religious fanatics). It doesn't help that the sides are fairly similar to each other.
These flaws mean that the game can be enjoyed only by people who can look past graphics and unattractive visual design. People appreciate gameplay and depth over all. There are fewer of them than you think.

I gave up on Sup Com after I discovered that if there was sufficient explosions on the map, the game would crash on my rig.

Truth is, the word innovative is very rarely used to describe a game made by EA or Blizzard. Relic does innovate quite a lot. It's the company who made Homeworld1,2 , Warhammer : Dawn of War, Winter Assautl, Dark Crusade, (each expansion introducing significant gameplay changes and innovation), and finally, Company of Heroes. I only played Homeworld2, but I heard each of these games feels distinctive in terms of both character and gameplay. Each game uses good parts of previous one, improves on its flaws, and has something new to show. It really puzzles me why Relic's games aren't as successful as Blizzard's. Could it be unsufficient marketing ?
I think that if anyone can topple Starcraft dominance in RTS field, it is a new game by Relic.

Company of Hero's is really quite good, but the seriously thick vehicle AI and the sharp multiplayer learning curve turned me off.

The RTS genre has been really quite sad in the last few years. To the point were I would think that all Blizzard needs to do is stick starcraft into a newer, fancy engine and they've got a hit.

---

[Last edited by NiroZ at 05-29-2007 10:23 AM]

Dex Stewart
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 355
Registered: 01-19-2007
IP: Logged

While that may be true(I can confirm that Homeworld 1, at least, is a beautiful game), Starcraft also has a *lot* of good sides.

The first thing that comes to mind are the three races. They are completely different, each have their own character/style, and yet they are balanced.

Then there's the speed. I, for one, actually like the speed. I don't like the short unit range which, as previously noted, decimate the level of formation and tactics that the game allows, however I still like the fact that Starcraft is more action-oriented.

And, as a matter of fact, Starcraft does have competition, which has nearly no arcade element at all. Cossacks and Age of Empires anyone?

rowrow
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 432
Registered: 08-17-2004
IP: Logged

Age of empires will,hopefully, be totally destroyed when sc2 comes out.
I love the new looks to the graphics and the fact that the things are bigger.
Does anyone know how many units you can have selected at once? i didnt read about a change in them anywhere.
Also, i like how they are removing the dragoons and replacing them with Immortals which is a better unit(hopefully) I hated how dragoons always got stuck and started walking around the game as if they were lost lol. Its cool how Immortals shield vs. the powerfull but not the weak. Hopefully they wont be able to be destroyed easily as doing a spawn brooding on tanks.

____________________________
B'hakhgra Du S'tra Moth'ness Ti!

Dex Stewart
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 355
Registered: 01-19-2007
IP: Logged

No matter how excited I am over new features... I sure hope they will keep a mod around for the original SC(and Brood War)!

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

Starcraft brought the Dune 2-style RTS to its logical conclusion. I doubt SC2 will reinvigorate the genre - RTS fans will probably need to get their jollies from a different game that betrays the fans and betrays the principles of the RTS genre while actually capturing the things that made RTS games popular in the first place. The whole 'build base for thirty minutes, fight for five, war of attrition for thirty' is frankly pretty tired, and the only way they can fix that is by breaking a lot of assumptions about the genre.

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

NekoIncardine
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 127
Registered: 08-23-2005
IP: Logged

Cossacks and Age of Empires anyone?

Microsoft seems to have figured out that the latter one's a popular alternative, what with the new expansions for AoE III coming out, as well as the DS version (based off of AoE II).

You have to wonder, though, if Starcraft (1) would work on the DS (need I mention Starcraft 64), were Blizzard willing to do it.

____________________________
The secret to using a sword is that you hit people with the sharp end and then they die.

Nillo
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 01-04-2004
IP: Logged

rowrow wrote:
Does anyone know how many units you can have selected at once? i didnt read about a change in them anywhere.

Doom wrote:
One thing that adds support for larger armies is the fact that unit selection will no longer be limited to 12 in a group. Probably won't be a huge change there overall, but at least this removes a good deal of hotkeying. And the zerg are of course an exception. I doubt you'll see many mid-late game zerg attacks with 10 units at the screen.

As for myself, I'll probably stick to WC3 a bit longer. The feel of Warcraft, its universe and its storyline appeals more to me. I might get SC2 just to play the campaign, but whether I continue after that depends solely on the power of its world editor.

Although I'm sure there won't be heroes in the normal melee maps, I would very much like if it they were available in custom maps and in the campaign. That possibility is more or less the only thing I'm excited about here. The novelty of its pretty graphics will wear off after a while.

____________________________
“Folks say that if you listen real close at the height of the full moon, when the wind is blowin' off Nantucket Sound from the nor' east and the dogs are howlin' for no earthly reason, you can hear the awful screams of the crew of the 'Ellie May,' a sturdy whaler Captained by John McTavish; for it was on just such a night when the rum was flowin' and, Davey Jones be damned, big John brought his men on deck for the first of several screaming contests.”

---

[Last edited by Nillo at 05-21-2007 03:20 PM]

malkav11
Level: Delver
Rank Points: 59
Registered: 01-05-2007
IP: Logged

Warcraft III was hugely different from Warcraft II, yes. But it's really not as different as you might think from Starcraft. A fourth faction and a setting switch, more complex heroes....otherwise the differences I can think of are mostly evolutionary user-friendliness improvements like a larger group selection, auto-cast spells, and that sort of thing.

Starcraft was the watershed of Blizzard RTSes. Honestly, of the whole genre. Before it, things were so, so much more primitive and the sides were rarely much different.

(I still prefer WCIII, though, simply because I was actually able to play through the campaign without cheating once. I am *not* good at the genre, and Starcraft I pretty much went straight to the codes.)

Dex Stewart
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 355
Registered: 01-19-2007
IP: Logged

Err... The heroes are a HUGE deifference between Starcraft and Warcraft 3. I mean... the most obvious example are RPGs. A Starcraft RPG is almost always boring, while a Warcraft RPG is a totally different story...

malkav11
Level: Delver
Rank Points: 59
Registered: 01-05-2007
IP: Logged

I don't know. I don't think they change the basic way the game plays all *that* much. They're just now an actual unit class with special powers instead of a regular unit with a lot more HP and perhaps a power loadout that's nontypical for that unit. I agree that it's a significant change, but I don't think it's quite as huge as all that.

I'm not trying to argue that they're the same game or anything, but they map a lot more closely to one another than much of anything else I've played.

So I don't think Starcraft II being functionally pretty similar would be all that surprising. Though I'd certainly be interested to see what they might come up with if it's not.

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

And they're shiny. Don't forget the shiny.