Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ScrambledGregs]

Wasn't Blizzard going to announce their new project today?? I realize with time zone fuckery it may be too early to start making threads asking about it, but has anybody heard anything yet??

OK so it's Starcraft 2. And it's a RTS with the three races returning from the original game.

I can't help but feel that Blizzard still has a lot up their sleeves, because otherwise this idea seems so ho-hum and obvious that is a disappointment even if you've been slavering for a sequel for years.

[Narr]

Updated graphics + new units = new game.

They decided they didn't want to do what they did with Warcraft 3 and create too many races.  They wanted to keep the same complexity that was there before, as far as races go, but add more micromanagement to all units.

This seems like the best way to go.

[TheBoredOne]

Just saw the teaser trailer.
Yum.
starcraft2.com

[0bsessions]

I was hoping more for Diablo III. *Sigh*

[Narr]

I was hoping more for Diablo III. *Sigh*

See Hellgate: London.

The Diablo team pretty much left Blizzard awhile ago and that's their project now.

[TrueNeutral]

There should not be a new Diablo game. All the main evils are gone and more ressurecting would be idiotic.

[McTaggart]

There are still like four lesser evils. Without the greater ones to keep them in check they'd get bigger maybe?

[Oli]

Guys you seem to be forgetting how ridiculously awesome starcraft is. Starcraft is one of the few games that had a definitive impact on my life as a child.

I am glad it is just the three original races, they are all different enough to keep me happy. The extra races in Warcraft 3 (Night elf and Undead) kind of irritated me. I mean I was glad there was more to play, but Orcs & Humans is all I really wanted. Although it was good that the races weren't EXACTLY THE SAME like in warcraft 1 + 2.

[Spike]

Here's to hoping that this doesn't go the way of Starcraft Ghost.

[TheFuriousWombat]

I don't care how awesome Starcraft was. Diablo II is one of the best, and easily the most addictive games ever made. Starcraft, pardon my hearsay, it a fun, really popular RTS....and not much more. Diablo III was what I was really hoping for even if Hellgate: London (which looks frickin brilliant) is on its way. Like McTaggart said, there are some lesser evils. Azmodan and Belial are two that jump off the page and other lesser evils could be added to the pantheon as well. Diablo III would be awesome, even if the gameplay was similar but in new worlds and with new classes/skills/enemies/weapons ect. Man that would be great.....

[The Cosmic Fool]

Diablo was good. Speaking as a Blizzard fan for all games, Diablo is amazing.

But I also believe that SC needs it's day. Diablo II has a sequel. Now, as much as I'd love to see Diablo III...I've been waiting longer for SC2, and so has everyone else.

[Ozymandias]

I don't care how awesome Starcraft was. Diablo II is one of the best, and easily the most addictive games ever made. Starcraft, pardon my hearsay, it a fun, really popular RTS....and not much more.

I pretty much think the exact opposite. Starcraft is one of the most perfectly crafted games ever made, with one of the best, richest universes in video game history. There's a reason it's still getting patched for more robust content by Blizzard 10 years later. Diablo II was just fun little action RPG, but not much more.

And it got old hell of fast.

[Scytale]

Is the storyline going to continue on from Brood War, with Sarah Kerrigan pretty much controlling the universe (How F#%Kin difficult was that last level.) I'm surprised they didn't add a new race, since the bonus mission from Broodwar had you discovering those Protoss\Zerg hybrids. Anyway I'm looking forward to it.

What I loved about the original Starcraft was how diverse it was, there was lots of different combinations of units like Defilers and Ultralisks working in tandem, or my favorite Arbiters with Reavers , just recall a bunch of revers past he's defenses and BAM you could level a outpost in seconds...

It wasn't centered around micro-management (like Warcraft 3 was), which made it a bit more strategic IMO. Warcraft 3 pissed me off because the multiplayer seemed to revolve solely around leveling up your hero's, unless you knew the maps by heart and knew where all the critters were you were at a huge disadvantage as your opponent (especially in 1 v1 games) would run round the map levelling up he's hero before you had a chance too, then you'd be on the back foot all game.

[Narr]

GUYS

AS I HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE DIABLO TEAM NO LONGER EVEN WORKS AT BLIZZARD.  THEY HAVE MOVED ON TO A NEW PROJECT CALLED "HELLGATE: LONDON".

I AM PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IGNORED.

Saying "Blizzard made this awesome game!" is kind of a fallacy.  That's like saying EA is responsible for how awesome Dawn of War is.

[epifreak]

It's about bloody time the RTS I actually give a damn about gets some love. This had better be damn good, or else there's going to be quite a few disappointed fans (me included).

[weenus]

Having played Hellgate: London at E3, I have to say, FUCK DIABLO. HG:L is awesome. Nuff said.

Starcraft 2: even if they release the game as is, as you see in the videos on youtube and such, I would be happy. I would still be happy playing the original SC/BW (if I could find my CDs). An updated engine with some new fixings is more than enough to justify my money, for what I consider the most fun RTS I've ever played.

[ScrambledGregs]

The problem is not simply how Starcraft 2 remains faithful to Starcraft 1. The problem is that, after a ten year absence, I expect more than just incremental improvements. Diablo II isn't all that much different from Diablo I: they just added a ton of new features and made it look prettier while leaving the perfectly addictive, fundamental gameplay intact. But what was the time between those games?? Four or five years??

To be fair, Starcraft is possibly the most perfectly balanced RTS to this day, and given Blizzard's track record, Starcraft 2 will be great. But again, they had ten years between sequels, and all they did was give it a Diablo II style upgrade?? This is like going from Mario 1 to Super Mario World with a ten year layover. It's the same game, but with a bunch of added shit and better graphics that is only justifiable with a 4 or 5 year layover.

[Neadric]

Starcraft 2 will be amazing there is no doubt about that, the reason they aren't changing things up radically is because as we all know, it worked perfectly in SC1 so whats the point of trying something new? *cough* hero units *cough* and have it wind up like crap.

i think they are doing a good thing of keeping gameplay basically the same but adding alot of new units and features to existing units/buildings. i'm just happy they are releasing a sequel i want to know what happens with the story more than anything, all the other stuff is bonus for me. and i think the graphics look great, not top of the line, but you don't need amazing graphics to make a great game.

[Johnny C]

The gameplay video is up on the Starcraft II website. Has anyone besides me bothered watching it?

[Oli]

it's like 240MB. My connection isn't fast enough for me to be bothered downloading it yet.

[Narr]

The gameplay video is up on the Starcraft II website. Has anyone besides me bothered watching it?

I watched it, and the video has restored my love of Blizzard Entertainment.  Since they started the whole World of Warcraft thing, the company has made some really bizarre PR moves and hasn't really created.... well, anything.  They continue to make moves in that game that frustrate me as a gamer and a fan of fantasy worlds (Warcraft is the most retconned fantasy world in the history of mankind, I swear to god) but Starcraft 2 looks like they're making a smart move.

They aren't changing anything that made Starcraft work so well.  I guaran-damn-tee that everyone complaining about how it's just "more of the same" will end up loving the game if they loved the original and would be pissed if they changed things drastically to the point it winded up being to Starcraft what Warcraft 3 was to Warcraft.

[epifreak]

I just watched it earlier today. The zealot rush is something that needed to occur in the worst way. No longer will your zealots calmly meander towards the enemy. The AI also appeared to be considerably better (provided that wasn't scripted in). I didn't see any single-file marching slaughters like you see with the original. The mothership is also pretty sexy. With that said, it looks kind of like the protoss are going to be much more mobile and probably a little weaker as a result. As for the zerg, the new lings look awesome. The nydus worms have the potential to be downright gamebreaking, though. I didn't really see enough of the new terran units to really evaluate them.

[Johnny C]

Basically it looks like a fucking rad game of rock-paper-scissors. Though the Zerg rushing still annoys the hell out of me while simultaneously scaring my pants off.

I wonder what surprises Blizzard has up its sleeves still.

[Narr]

Basically it looks like a fucking rad game of rock-paper-scissors. Though the Zerg rushing still annoys the hell out of me while simultaneously scaring my pants off.

I wonder what surprises Blizzard has up its sleeves still.

That zerg rush was beat off by all of 10 units, with minimal casualties.  True, they morphed into exploding bugs and steamrolled the rest, but that's NOT THE POINT HERE.

It seems like the zergling rush is not as valid a tactic anymore.

[ScrambledGregs]

I look forward to Blizzard nerfing all kinds of formerly valid tactics with countless patches for Starcraft 2!! Yay!!

[Catfish_Man]

It seems like the zergling rush is not as valid a tactic anymore.

Having just watched a flood of zerglings in a mixed hydra/ling force get utterly slaughtered this morning while the hydralisks took minimal losses, I can assure you it never was particularly valid outside of the very early game*.

Hydras, otoh, are fucking awesome. Cheap, vicious, and versatile.


*and yes, it's devastating early on, I know.

[mberan42]

Yeah, I watched the gameplay video this afternoon. Holy hell does it look awesome.

[Johnny Evilguy]

Gameplay looks awesome... Can't wait to hear to relive the great sounds of starcraft like

Zergling: errrr errrrr!

Hydra: brrrrrarrrrrr!

Drone: gromble gromble

[Oli]

The music for starcraft was awesome as well.

DUNDA DUNDA DUN DUNNN. DUNNN. DUNNN. DUNDA DUNDA DUN DUNN. DUNNN. DUNNNNNNNN.

[epifreak]

I think (and hope) that the rock-paper-scissors aspect of it was largely due to the units they chose, similar to how siege tanks beat massed marines beat battlecruiser. If those were the only three units you initially saw, the first SC would probably look pretty rock-paper-scissors-esque. I for one hope that it falls more in line with the first one, though, with plenty of with the right conditions, X beats Y, unless Y has a few Z, at which point X can incorporate a few Q to pull out a victory.....

[Johnny C]

No, I gathered that. Like when the Zerglings were attacked by the Zealots with Colossi as backup.

[Orbert]

I took the rock-paper-scissors comment to mean that each race has a chance to win, and a chance to lose. I've heard many claims that "Zerg can always beat Protoss, Protoss can always beat Terran, and Terran can always beat Zerg" or something like that, which would be a true rock-paper-scissors relationship, but for every "guaranteed" strategy for some race to beat one of the others, someone always manages to beat it anyway. That's the beauty of the game. There are so many variations to playing each of the races that none is "guaranteed" to always win, because you don't know what the other guys are doing.

The Zergling Rush is definitely a tried-and-true "strategy" that seems to work most of the time, provided you can find the enemy before he has a chance to build anything, but I've read elsewhere that Blizzard has taken steps to "improve balance" in the new game. Given that the balance was just about perfect to begin with, some people have taken this to mean that things like the Zergling Rush will be a thing of the past.

[Johnny C]

Zealots beat Marines, Siege Tanks beat Zealots, Immortals beat Siege Tanks, Reapers beat Immortals, etc., etc.

[ScrambledGregs]

I beat My Meat.

[epifreak]

I beat My Meat.

That a new unit in SC2? Is it Terran, Zerg, or Toss?

[Spinless]

Pro-Toss. Seriously, don't underestimate how good at it he is. He can get himself off in under 30 seconds.

[epifreak]

I take it "getting himself off" is one of the victory conditions for that scenario? (God, I'm such a nerd)

[Narr]

I took the rock-paper-scissors comment to mean that each race has a chance to win, and a chance to lose. I've heard many claims that "Zerg can always beat Protoss, Protoss can always beat Terran, and Terran can always beat Zerg" or something like that, which would be a true rock-paper-scissors relationship, but for every "guaranteed" strategy for some race to beat one of the others, someone always manages to beat it anyway. That's the beauty of the game. There are so many variations to playing each of the races that none is "guaranteed" to always win, because you don't know what the other guys are doing.

The Zergling Rush is definitely a tried-and-true "strategy" that seems to work most of the time, provided you can find the enemy before he has a chance to build anything, but I've read elsewhere that Blizzard has taken steps to "improve balance" in the new game. Given that the balance was just about perfect to begin with, some people have taken this to mean that things like the Zergling Rush will be a thing of the past.

No, it's Terran > Protoss due to EMP shockwave, Protoss > Zerg (unless zerg rush), and Zerg > All, because they were the most adaptable.

[epifreak]

I took the rock-paper-scissors comment to mean that each race has a chance to win, and a chance to lose. I've heard many claims that "Zerg can always beat Protoss, Protoss can always beat Terran, and Terran can always beat Zerg" or something like that, which would be a true rock-paper-scissors relationship, but for every "guaranteed" strategy for some race to beat one of the others, someone always manages to beat it anyway. That's the beauty of the game. There are so many variations to playing each of the races that none is "guaranteed" to always win, because you don't know what the other guys are doing.

The Zergling Rush is definitely a tried-and-true "strategy" that seems to work most of the time, provided you can find the enemy before he has a chance to build anything, but I've read elsewhere that Blizzard has taken steps to "improve balance" in the new game. Given that the balance was just about perfect to begin with, some people have taken this to mean that things like the Zergling Rush will be a thing of the past.

No, it's Terran > Protoss due to EMP shockwave, Protoss > Zerg (unless zerg rush), and Zerg > All, because they were the most adaptable.

As for Terran vs. Protoss, I can't dispute the value of the EMP, but I don't think Terrans are always better than Toss. As for Protoss vs. Zerg, speed is an important factor. Barring zerg rush, if the zerg player can continue to pound the protoss player with units, keeping him in a constant state of repair/rebuild, the zergie may still have it. I also disagree with the zerg being more adaptable than the others. The zerg are completely under-equipped for air combat. Sure they've got mutated mutalisks, but by the time they get that, the protoss player can have carriers or corsairs, and the terran player can be fielding a few valkeries, mixed with wraiths and battlecruisers.

[Oli]

If a protoss player sends a large attack of zealots against a zerg player early in the game (not as early as a zerg rush but before the play has any air units) the zerg are generally pounded. Zealots are excellent units.

Edit: Also one time my friend was playing on battlenet as terran against a protoss player. Motherfucker zealot rushed him, it was insane.

[beat mouse]

Edit: Also one time my friend was playing on battlenet as terran against a protoss player. Motherfucker zealot rushed him, it was insane.

if you're playign on battle.net and you dont expect to be zealot rushed, it might be time for a new game.

[mberan42]

What's up with people quoting the post directly above them?

I'm actually really rather excited about this game - I was a big fan of the first one. When I was in college, my dorm floor would have big LAN parties and kick each other's ass at Starcraft: basically we all opened our doors, boot up the game and shout profanities at each other across the hall. It was good times.

[beat mouse]

i do it mostly out of habit in that many forums i post on have high activity and most times a post can sneak in by the time i'm done posting, by quoting what i'm referring to it prevents any possible confusion and honestly, this is the only forum i've seen that even notices it, let alone takes a bizarre offense to it. i don't mostly intend to, but even sometimes i'll quote only part of the post above me in which case that would be the part i am responding to, to help lessen possible confusion or misinterpretation. if it's a big deal i'll try and curb it here.

[ScrambledGregs]

This forum warns you if people sneak in a post before your's, so you can go back and quote if need be.

[Johnny C]

Hey guys I don't really have a problem if it's obvious that he's quoting and responding to one particular part, especially seeing as how I do that all the time. That limits confusion. It's quoting the entire post above yours and then not adding anything that's the issue.

Anyways I've been slogging my way through the original StarFCraft lately. So much fun.

[beat mouse]

This forum warns you if people sneak in a post before your's, so you can go back and quote if need be.

i dont get that, why would you get warned for posting quicker than someone else without any idea they'd be posting?

[ScrambledGregs]

I didn't mean Warned like you get in trouble, I mean it says "SOMEBODY POSTED BEFORE YOU CHECK IT OUT" and you have to click 'post' again to make sure you want to post what you were going to before somebody else snuck one in.

[mberan42]

Yeah, 'cause it shows the newest post in the Topic Summary once it says "SOMEONE JUST POSTED - TAKE A GANDER".

[beat mouse]

ohhhhhhh. that makes a lot of sense then. i thought it was just heavily enforced or something. but yeah, i wouldnt have thought it was that big a deal.

[Scytale]

As for Terran vs. Protoss, I can't dispute the value of the EMP, but I don't think Terrans are always better than Toss. As for Protoss vs. Zerg, speed is an important factor. Barring zerg rush, if the zerg player can continue to pound the protoss player with units, keeping him in a constant state of repair/rebuild, the zergie may still have it. I also disagree with the zerg being more adaptable than the others. The zerg are completely under-equipped for air combat. Sure they've got mutated mutalisks, but by the time they get that, the protoss player can have carriers or corsairs, and the terran player can be fielding a few valkeries, mixed with wraiths and battlecruisers.

As a Zerg player I dispute that I rarely get beaten by air, spore colonies and massed Hydralisks (best unit in the game IMO) can take out battle cruiser fleets, if you see a carrier fleet heading towards you, mass build scourages, some care ful micromanagement and youcan take out there ammo faster then they can built it, then just finish them off with Hydras from the ground. Arbiters and recall, especially backed with corsairs are probably the best combo in the game, corsair disable ground defences, mass recall a bunch of zeralots and dragoons or worse reavers and bam bye bye outpost. Of course that takes a fuck load of money. The biggest problem with zerg is the amount of micromanagement, since most of your units are burrowed or inside overlords it gets tricky trying to respond quickly to attacks, Nydus canals are pretty invaluable actually, not many people use them though.