Who thinks Starcraft 2 is going to be !@#$

Hi everyone,

I've been observing the development of the epic game Starcraft follow up -Starcraft2 since they've first announced it.

Up until this point...I have to say
(1) Unit designs: looks overall crap , I'm serious... Immortal (former dragoon) looks like starwars... Zealot is copying Demon Hunter's skin (look at his movement animation) ...photon cannons goes up and down like it's jacking off... siege tank looks like an ice cream truck... and much much more...

...and the WORST THING IS: Protoss mother-ship has that stupid sphere-shaped energy shield at it's top...when I watched the video clip summoning the mother-ship I was like : "WOW I wonder what's gonna come out....", and then ended up this UFO with a little round cap that makes a funny "tweek!" sound when it powers up.

(2) Game physic: Okay guys, I'm gonna ask you a question: when a fighter jet blows up....does it BLOW UP or fall into bits n pieces onto the ground like LEGO? Well , obviously Blizzard thinks falling into bits of LEGO is the right thing to do... =_= , comeon Blizz, players want to see "BOOM!!!" not ".....clink...clink...clink...."

(3) Gameplay: this bit is going to be a bit controversial, as Starcraft is based on MICRO (controlling single units so they don't die) not MACRO (controlling groups of units to perform an overall strategy... death is inevitable).... but in my opinion.... two groups of Aircraft flying towards each other shouldn't just STOP when they get in range.... it's like F16's reporting to command centre "okay , target in sight.....im going to stop moving so I can start shooting..."

(4) My conclusion so far: Blizzard needs to check out CnC3 and World in Conflict and seriously compare the detail and design of mechanics and most importantly gameplay. Right now it just feels like Starcraft 1 with an improvement in graphics which isn't even that great as compared to modern RTS games (People who are worried about their PC specs I wouldn't be so worried right now TBH)

comments and opinions are most welcomed.

 

I really think that from what we've seen so far, graphics could be better. Its nice, but the way units are destroyed...they just explode and disappear...I mean, seeing as even games from 2004 can have the airships shatter and pieces fall to the ground, I'd like to see these elements of reality to show up in Starcraft 2.

 

I'll reserve judgment until I play it.

 

1) Did you PLAY starcraft 1? The photon cannons looked like spiky tentacle towers, siege tanks looked retarded (but deadly) with those spindly legs in siege mode, zealots sounded like a dog growling and the photon blast shot was used by like half the protoss forces

2) Zerg buildings used to hemorage blood and leave behind masses of organs. Marines left behind twice their body weight in blood, most protoss units didn't leave a corpse. Your point to all of that?

3) Again, did you play SC1? That is how it works for blizz's rts games (see WC3) and if you don't like it then tough.

4) But then it wouldn't be starcraft. It would be command in conflict.


Honestly it sounds as if you either
a) never played SC1
or
b) you played it but hated it in which case Sc2 isn't going to change your mind because guess what? It's a starcraft game.

I <3 the immortals and always loved how goofy some of the aspects of the game were. Remember that blizz always likes some humor in their games. The mothership seems like an odd addition but as long as it works well then whatever. You seem to forget that blizzard is arguably the most successful among the companies when it comes to rts making. The amount of people playing SC1 and WC3 to this day is impressive. I have the utmost faith that SC2 will dominate.

 

it's not meant to be (just) pretty, it's meant to glue you to the screen for the next couple of days/weeks.

thing I'd like to see in SC2 would be first person mode for multiplayer, i.e. being able to become a field unit. Hint: look at savage, from s2games.com

That would rock for me - shooting zerglings etc neato.

 

Mmmhhhh... too much talk for not even knowing how the gameplay and the finals details will be (meaning there isn't a demo).

It's better to wait and judge afterwards. So far Blizzard has not disappointed with its games.

 

it's their game and they're making it the way they want to make it. so far, that hasn't stopped them from making appealing game for the masses better than any other company. people have said the same thing about WoW before it was released so i don't know why it's even worth discussing when blizzard hasn't given us anything yet.

 

like movies, i think that any sequel to a great game will generally not live up to expectations.

aoe2 > aoe3

HoI 1 > HoI2

EE1 > EE2 and 3

just to name 3

 

And I'm sure Warcraft 2 > Warcraft 3, right? =P

Now, there is also the factor that this sequel is 10 years after the original game, so there are plenty of chances of finding an excellent and outstanding game.

 

but sometimes we need to blame our own ridiculously high expectations for the let down.

 

maybe not 2 > 3 i don't think 10 years is any indication that it will be better/ just as good.

truth.

 

I still play SC1 and WC3 everyone once in awhile (got stuck with DOTA in WC3: FT for awhile *sigh*).

Anyway. Point is that the majority of folks will be pleased with SC2 as long as it is decent and at least provides the same level of entertainment as SC1.

I don't think it is possible that it will live up to pure expectation. The game will be a little bit off-mark when put up against peoples' perceptions of what it should be. But that is not a bad thing!

To make a comparison, I see SC2 to SC1 as I see Team Fortress 2 to Team Fortress: Classic.

TF2 is brilliant, lots of people enjoy it and play it, but it isn't quite the same feel as TF:C. SC2 will be brilliant, but it will be different enough from SC1 that some extremely hardcore players will be a little bit turned off at first.

Also, it is a great idea that blizz is keeping hardware requirements for SC2 VERY LOW.

People in foreign markets where SC is most popular (South Korea) don't always have top of the line components like many of us do in the West. Making SC2 accessible on low-end hardware will ensure that the installed SC base has a chance to try out the sequel without throwing down Crysis-like upgrade money.

Blizzard knows what they are doing. And I'm sure SC2 will be successful, if not quite the 800lbs gorilla its predecessor was.

 

Thanks for the opinion, yes I know Blizz is a great company, it's my fav thus I quoted their previous games. Also yes, I played SC since it came out, even now... I'm not going to start ranting on about how I'm pro and plz 1v1 me on Bnet if you wanna settle this watever like most noobs say. So anyway, personally I thought almost every SC1 design was state of art for a 90's game without 3D. The negative points I stated above are impressions I got from videos, not trying to compare with it's previous title.

One thing I'll have to disagree with you is the whole "this is how it works with Blizz's RTS games" idea... games change with demand and evolution, I dun think Blizz will be very successful if they keep imitating SC1's gaming experience.

And regarding Blizz as the most successful company....well.... the original SC team left to make Guild Wars.... the new BlizzNorth team kinda picked up bits n pieces of what the original Blizz team left behind (WC3...WoW...etcetc) and finished most of those titles except for the obvious one SC:Ghost (god I wish it came out). Lets hope SC2 meets the gamer's expectations as one of the "most anticipated game of 2008"

Well good point, but some elements are ridiculously signs of laziness. Fingers crossed.

 

Sigh... CnC3 is like an insult to the series and to RTS games in general. It is the most generic, imbalanced (even though its hard to screw up imbalance on completely similar races yet EA does), buggy, rushed game with a major economy flaw that not even patches can fix. I made it to the top ranks of that game before I got completely bored (especially after they removed micro in patch 1.04) and ended up quitting before the end of summer. Oh yea not to mention are disconnects still losses? lol..

What are the odds Blizzard will make a rushed & imbalanced game with a reputation like Starcraft to uphold? Zero.

 

Well...CoD4>CoD3

 

Terminator 2 > Terminator
Aliens > Alien
Diablo 2 > Diablo

 

Two different developers. Infinity Ward is genius... Treyarch is just cheap.

 

there is no way SC2 > SC1

 

I dun care... at least they are working on it.. not like last time that they totally ignored sc and worked on their "WoW"

 

I think the game will be great, no matter what happens

 

I must admit, I'm rather disapointed in the graphics after looking at C&C3. I'm not expecting superb graphics, but SC2 looks as if it was designed at the same time as WC3.

Other than that, I'll hold the rest of my comments back until I play the game itself. I trust in Blizzard's ability to make another kickass game.

 

Judge the game when its released.

TBH, most of the OP's complaints seem completely inane and irrelevant.

Planes dont fall to the ground in little bits and pieces? Boo hoo?

Planes sit still while firing? This is a space fantasy game which potentially dozens, if not over 100 units on the screen at any one time, while Blizzard try to make it run on mid-level systems. It is a very small minded complaint.

 

I'd reserve judgement until a demo comes out giving a taste of the gameplay, it is pure personal preference as to what standards a game must meet artistically and technically, ultimately in RTS games you're more focused on telling units what to do rather than concentrating on how the aircraft falls to the ground after it's been shot down.

 

I agree with jaslyn, the units look like they were designed several years ago, jagged lines where there should be curve, and generally not enough detail you would expect from a game coming out in 2009 or 2010.

I would LOVE to have an option to play as a single unit FPS.

 

waiting for it eagerly. hope the graphics inmprove

 

I think they would give u curviness if they want to but you probably need something even more powerful than a 8800GTX to play when there are more than 300 units on screen.

Like others, reserved judgement until a demo comes out. Gameplay > Graphics

 

personally, I consider sc2's graphics very good. Not as impressive as other new titles, but i don't think it has to be. whishing for a game to have so good graphics that only 25% of the computers on the market can play is kind of arrogant if you ask me. I prefer games to have ''common sense'' graphics. Not uber-detailed, but not crap either. And in this matter, sc2 is definately not crap.
A good example is dreamfall: TLJ. not uber-detailed, but good definately enough and there are some moments where it looks simply awesome.

 

I haven't been checking the demos and screenies recently for this game, but from what I have seems a while ago; starcraft two "Looks" more like an expansion graphic/unit-wise. I don't know about story lines yet, so that's reserved until the game is released, but to me l SC2 is like SC1 remake with a better graphic and a few extra units, which is essentially what expansion packs do.

 

Well.. i guess C&C3 is an expansion pack to C&C, RA2 is expansion for RA1, too many that i can't remember... Oh ya.. Halo 2 and 3 is expansion pack for Halo.. yay!

 

Pretty much, they don't really introduce a completely new story instead they just continues the previous one with new graphic style and units. Oh, and a plot twist so they can "continue" it again with the next game.
In my opinion they should look at Valve and start naming game with "Episode", like Red Alert Episode 2!! C&C Episode 3: Kane's back once again (He never dies, geez). Of course, they just want to milk more money out of us.

 

doesn't seem like you know much about it

 

It's alpha code/graphics. Give them some time to refine the graphics. I'm sure some of the animations and unit graphics are still work in progress. But I would say graphics were never their strong suit anyhow. The need to look representative just not Hollywood spectacular.

I agree with you here. At least make the explosion animations loko like physics are being used, even if it's a half dozen random explosion animations.

I agree with you 100% there. At least make the air units remain in motion. It's one thing for ground units to remain in formation, but air units need to follow a flight pattern. Dogfights should ensue, and not just blast at each other from a standstill. Even if the rock/scissors/paper approach is used, use the decided outcome to show an animated battle to look real. With SC1 and sprites it was understandable. But with 3D, make best use of it.

I'm not concerned with gameplay one iota. Blizzard has proven that's what they do best. However, as you state, the detail and design of mechanics could use some improvement. While I'd be happy with SC1 in 3D, I'd be much happier if the improved on the gameplay mechanics that made it so fun and good in the first place. And not be afraid to try something new either.

Plus they need to make good use of the advanced 3D technology. Considering this is a 10 year old sequel and developed in a 2D world, any amount of 3D animation is an improvement, and they can still keep system requirements low. Heck even an Intel 950 IGP should be able to deliver a world of improvement over the original graphically, just need to be clever in how they do it.

I don't think a great RTS needs excellent graphics, but this doesn't mean that you shouldn't take advantage of the graphic technology available, even if it is antiquated Shader Model 1.4.

 

Anyone who knows anything about Starcraft will know that Starcraft is a macro game, not micro (unlike Warcraft III which is all micro)

I also don't see how you can come up with your conclusion when you haven't even played the game yet

 

blizzard doesn't make bad games...

 

The great thing about Starcraft is the replayability, especially playing with friends.

It is so simple, and balanced, imho, that it will continue to be a timeless classic, i've never tired of playing it while immmersing myself into Oblivion and the likes of those games.


I am looking forward to SC2, but my expectations aren't too high on the graphics front yet.

-Coors916

 

I think it looks good but yeh i doubt it will be a hit like Starcraft 1..i am looking forward to the campaign though

 

I have no doubt it will be a huge hit, and I don't mind giving blizzard my money, especially after waiting 10 years for this. Again though, after waiting for 10 years I want the game to be 10 years' worth of game design/ graphics improvement better. In the end though, as long as the marines look cool, I can zoom in w/o seeing pointy shoes on every unit, and I can control groups larger than 12 units I WILL be happy.

Hell, I"ll be thrilled at just the cinematics and advance in storyline hehe. I hope they have more than 1 cinematic per race.... that was my biggest disappointment with brood war.

 

Well, it won't be 10 years of game design/graphics improvement better because they've only been developing it for a couple years.

But yes, there should at least be some cool effects, and take into account the evolution of the RTS over the years. Keep it simple, but up with the times. Simple things, though, like aircraft circling to fight is a much better graphical and aesthetic improvement than just stopping and firing as was brought up by the OP. There's no reason this can't be accomplished.

I don't care about graphical detail down to seeing the zit on a marine's nose. But I do want some sense of "being there" and that the units behave somewhat how you'd expect.

I have no doubt that the balancing will take 90% of their beta testing time to iron it out, but it'll make the game that much more fun. Nothing is worse than a simple rush tactic exploit that is figured out in the first few days after a game is released, ruining the fun for everyone.

What I'd really like to see for multiplayer, however:

(1) rush timer options that will make all units invincible for X amount of minutes, and any enemy units hanging out within a certain radius of your base waiting for that time to expire will instantly die once the timer expires. This way rushing rules can be set by the map host.

(2) select which units can be used on a map. This would make for some interesting challenges. I know it might blow away the balancing act, but it would offer users the option to hone their skills with certain units, and eliminate any units that might have been exploited.

(3) Limit number of units per team. This would be a good way to handicap another player. If a great player can only use 20 units simultaneously vs. a noobs 100, then that might help the battle as well. If decent stats are kept then this would make it easy to handicap an experienced player automatically.

 

I have to disagree with you htwingnut.

I appreciate the intentions behind your suggestions, but I think all 3 of those changes would actually encourage poor play.

Players never exposed to rushes will never learn how to counter them, and become dependent on the "option" to turn them off. Similarly players never exposed to masses of units will never learn to scout out what their opponent is doing, and build the appropriate counter unit.

Admittedly there is a chance (maybe even a certainty) that there will be imbalances upon release, but that is up to Blizzard to fix - ultimately their game will be judged by it.

In my opinion, if you want to handicap a certain player, let them gain less from resources (similar to WC3's upkeep system, but all the time for the handicapped player) rather than playing around with tactics, maps and units.

 

I remember when wc3 came out people were whining left and right about the pop cap/ the graphics/ the game play/ the autocast.. whine whine whine... in the end wc3 was a big hit anyway. Some people are just never satisfied. I predict this game will be a monster hit win game of the year awards and will be played for the next 10 years.

 

Bah lets wait... it should be done this summer or next year (in blizzard time its 4years)

warcraft3 is nice... so SC2 should be ok... i guess...

 

screw the fancy graphics. Gameplay > Graphics. Balance and unique unit designs will and should take presidence over any eye candy. People will still be talking about amazing gameplay years from now. No one will remember the sparks or flares that show up when you blow up a unit.

 

@ oktoberfest: I completly agree, how can u make assumptions on pics and videos. Wait until the beta comes out at least before u start to flame about changes that need to be made, cause theres no way u no how gameplay will be from videos and pics, plus its smart that graphics arnt mind boggleing, basing games for the avg. user is much smarter. If they can make it to run with integrated graphics, I say go for it. Means more ppl to play against in the long run and less tweaking.

 

I've heard that Blizzard fixed the battle cruiser's attacking system.
It was pretty strange to have this super expensive/huge vessel that could only fight one on one..pretty pathetic.

Now, in sc2, the battlecruiser can attack multiple targets at once
I also heard it has some special abilities :O

 

Well, you're right, no doubt gameplay is more important than graphics... and I'm sure Blizzard will do it's best to balance the game. But like what some members in this post mentioned, there's an importance of improving the entire atmosphere with better graphics and game mechanics so people can enjoy the good gameplay while being ABSORBED into the environment and really feel the WOW factor, dun you agree? Especially when it's such a highly anticipated game, we all (to a certain degree) expect an exciting eye candy.

I'm not jumping to conclusions (and yes I know the game isn't out yet), it's just a thread where people can discuss about possible improvements and their impressions on the official video releases so far. The negative points that I mentioned doesn't mean I hate the game completely or I wouldn't be starting this thread.

"Hail it's about time." <-- dang that phrase excited me so much.

 

I'm pretty sure he said "Hell, it's about time!" That is exacly what I said when I first saw the intro, about 2 seconds before the marine said it.


I agree that gameplay and balacing is important, but lets face it, this is probably THE most anticipated computer game since... ever, so if they do not make it extremely eye-pleasing IN ADDITION to the gameplay and balancing, it will be a disappointment. I do not mean crysis-like graphics that can only run well on computers from the future, but they should still be better than other real time strategy games that are already out.

I really do not think that it is something extraordinary to expect from a game coming out 2-3 years from now and I'm sure Blizzard will do it, I think they are thinking about these things much more than we are since their jobs and reputation depends on it. So far every game they have come out with has been a success and I'm sure this one will as well

 

To me, Blizzard did a great job with WoW. Amazing scaling, and turned to max... looked beautiful, in a comic-book sense.

 

I dont. there is a reason people still play bf2, cs1.6, sc/wc, & cod to this day. gameplay > graphics.

 

I think BF2 still has some pretty good graphics maxed out. Maybe that's just me...

 

Sorry if I annoy you that badly that you need to make such a comment .

I'm speaking honestly...I have lots of hope for Starcraft 2. Starcraft 1 was awesome, I loved the units, the factions, the gameplay, the storyline. I just hope there can be more physics involved in the graphics part of the game .