StarCraft II Anounced!!!!!!!!!&#33

[Illiad86]

Pass... What ever happened to those days when you could buy a whole game as a single, inexpensive purchase? Why do I get the feeling that Diablo 3 will be handled in a similar way, where we're shelling out $50 for each act of a 5 act game?

 

Yeah, no kidding....urgh...really, they need to get off this "You're not getting the whole game unless you pay half of a minimum wage paycheck on it."

 

Not buying this regardless, I suck at RTS games lol...don't really like them either. Too much thinking :tongue: I'm not a "play to win" kinda gamer anyways...I likes me RPGs hehe

[Vagrant0]

I have not been keeping up with this game much at all. I just watched some of the videos of the gameplay and a couple of (fairly boring) Battle Reports (rather play than watch).

 

A thought came across my mind that I think would have been excellent for this kind of game.

 

Base and Force commanders. In a team-based game of several players against several other players, it would be interesting to have one or two guys handling base-building (economics / strategy) and others managing units (tactics). The base commander highlights a selection of groups and assigns them to team player 1 and control is given over to that player to manage those units. Other units are created and those are then assigned to the next player, etc. As the base begins to expand, more base commanders can then start micromanaging the building of the remote bases.

 

Pretty-much the exact same game and size of map that SC2 is currently doing but just multiple people controlling multiple aspects.

 

In a 1 on 1 game, it would be how it is played now, on a 2 on 2 game, it could be split where one builds, the other fights, etc.

 

I could easily see a airforce, army and naval commanders emerge out of this. That would be awesome to see. Even better if unbalanced where two or three newbies work together against a single pro. Can you imagine the shame an humiliation that could be delivered when 5 guys try to defeat 1 and lose! hahaha.

 

LHammonds

The problem with that is that it is new, and requires coordination between users. Given that the series was made famous for allowing people to show off their insane micromanaging skills, and their ability to easily stomp out less skilled players with a zergrush, such a scary new concept probably wouldn't work too well. Having more than 1 person doing stuff would probably end up being a disadvantage since you would need to spend time coordinating efforts without screwing over eachother. All it takes is one noob who buys expensive units instead of what is immediately needed to screw over the whole team.

 

I'm not a "play to win" kinda gamer anyways

Starcraft isn't a "play to win" game, it's a "crush them within the first 2 minutes repeatedly and drive them to the point of tears, afterwhich you harass them for being a whiney noob" kinda game. It's worse than Yahoo chess.

[Illiad86]

lol :biggrin: Yeah, that's why I try to avoid playing games online anymore, people are either mean or take it way too seriously, it's a game ffs.

[Dark0ne]

You people should try playing Heroes of Newerth if you think the rage in SC2 is bad.

 

On the note of people working together; perhaps one of the closest mainstream games that has come close to that is World in Conflict. No base building, but each player picks the role of either Infantry, Tanks, Air or Support (Artillery, anti-air and repair). You can have some great games in that where each role works together to push objectives by synogising with the other players around you. Highly recommended game from me.

[Pyrosocial]

I actually lose a lot in multiplayer at this =P apparently I'm to slow and try to enjoy the battles. :sweat:

 

I normally play the campaigns and make maps, because blizzards world editors are awesome. I have a warcraftIII RPG style map that I've been working on and off on for over a month.

 

The reason they split the game up was because they would have had to delay it if they tried to put all the races on one game.

[_frost_]

Not really convincing.

If Dark0ne is right with his price-prediction £105 (£35 x 3) or 150€ (3*50€ [Germany]), then the "delay-prevention" is only a lame excuse for... hmm let me think... daylight robbery?!!

 

 

_frost_

 

(former SC-Player(Protoss))

[hoshi23]

Gonna wait 4 to 6 years and get the collection for 10 bucks from the pyramid, if at all.

[Pyrosocial]

Wow i'm like the only thats actually gonna buy it when it comes out. O.o

[Halororor]

Yes. we'll be buying all the other must have titles coming out around then. :p

[overload1977]

err have you guys watched the gameplay videos ? StarCraft II going to flop.........StarCraft II graphics looks dated but StarCraft fans will love it , also with that price none are going to buy all 3 versions, well done Blizzard Entertainment for messing up lets hope they dont mess up Diablo III...................... :unsure: