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

[lonewolfkai]

Hmm. I MIGHT buy the zerg expansion. I enjoyed that side of the story for some reason with the first game. I stress the might though.

 

What is Orange Box? Sorry for my ignorance, I haven't been keeping up with the latest in gaming marketing, except for the very little with Ubisoft and their crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box

 

Ahh okay. Yeah, I miss going to the store and see those mulitpacks. I can remember when I bought my first computer, saw the Blizzard combo pack of Diablo and Starcraft, and a few others that were bundled together. Those were the days. The game industry has sadly become nothing but about the almighty dollar now and from the reports I've heard about it's gotten monstrous. Even more sadly, I will probably give my dollars to feed the monster as well....

.

.

.

I just wont be as bad as buying separate compentants to make a whole game like SC2.

 

Still, I could have foreseen this long ago when MMORPGs became big. If you think about it, that's the answer to the popularity to MMOs that offer new content to subscribers. Single expansions just won't cut it anymore. Pretty soon, we'll be seeing games that are split into separate pieces just like SC2, even linear, story-like games that don't conclude until the last piece is installed. Then you can do expansions that do the same thing all over again. And why not? Book series already do that. Heck, the book series I'm writting does that. You have to read all four books to get to the end. I can see single player games following the same pattern in the future. Sad to me though because games have always been nice neat little packages, save for the few MMOs I've played.

 

BUT, at the same time, it does bode well for gamers. Now their favorite games can go on and on. Ever have a game you wished didn't end?

[Vagrant0]

Heck, the book series I'm writting does that.

Just a tip... Each book needs to stand on its own and have value in its own right or else people will feel cheated. It's the exact same way with videogames. If there's no partial conclusion, or each one just lacks any sort of resolution, it'll just look like it's unfinished and people will be more upset than they are excited about waiting for the next part. Fortunately most of the expansions out there had enough sense to do this. The base game told a story, the expansion added on to that story, and a later expansion added another story. But each one was, in itself, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end with some resolution of what was involved within that story.

 

I would assume that they plan to do atleast this much with Starcraft 2, seeing as how this is how the campaigns were setup in the first one. But, in separating them like they are, each campaign would need to be substantive enough to be its own game, and not just another episode.

[Pyrosocial]

Blizzard said that each game would have its own story.

[lonewolfkai]

To me though, the first SC ended the game without really a close to the story. The expansion especially did that too. It left the story wide open. Sure there was some closure, but there was still a wide open gap they left open with the zerg. I can even remember Blizzard saying there wasn't going to be a sequel, which of course they now are eating their own words. "Pass the salt and pepper please?" I did feel cheated then when they announced that at first.

 

As far as my book series goes, there are some conclusive elements to each book, but the whole of the story is spread out across the four. I've read many series like that, The Belgariad series from David Eddings comes to mind. Regardless, I do want to have a more separate feel for each book, and right now the series reads like one whole big one. However, I haven't finished the series yet and have only scratched a little at the editting. The first book does very well at this separateness now, the third one does pretty good, but leaves it as an unexpected cliffhanger, and a pretty good one I might say so myself, :D ,but the second one is a little open ended. That'll have to be fixed. Forth, I'm still working on. I've hit a motivation speed bump with it though, because of a personal tragedy, and it's been that way for almost a year now. I'm not going to give it up though, I've collectively spent 8-9 years of my life on it, and I'm not about to abandon it. I will be publishing this in some way or form.

 

Sorry about the rambling. I get excited when I talk about the books. LOL.

[Pyrosocial]

To me though, the first SC ended the game without really a close to the story. The expansion especially did that too. It left the story wide open. Sure there was some closure, but there was still a wide open gap they left open with the zerg. I can even remember Blizzard saying there wasn't going to be a sequel, which of course they now are eating their own words. "Pass the salt and pepper please?" I did feel cheated then when they announced that at first.

 

As far as my book series goes, there are some conclusive elements to each book, but the whole of the story is spread out across the four. I've read many series like that, The Belgariad series from David Eddings comes to mind. Regardless, I do want to have a more separate feel for each book, and right now the series reads like one whole big one. However, I haven't finished the series yet and have only scratched a little at the editting. The first book does very well at this separateness now, the third one does pretty good, but leaves it as an unexpected cliffhanger, and a pretty good one I might say so myself, :D ,but the second one is a little open ended. That'll have to be fixed. Forth, I'm still working on. I've hit a motivation speed bump with it though, because of a personal tragedy, and it's been that way for almost a year now. I'm not going to give it up though, I've collectively spent 8-9 years of my life on it, and I'm not about to abandon it. I will be publishing this in some way or form.

 

Sorry about the rambling. I get excited when I talk about the books. LOL.

 

True, but even if the game play hasn't changed much it adds more to the story. lore fans like myself get to find out more about the game, like :

Will Nova play a big role in the game? what about Arcturus Mensk? will we know what the plan was that LT. Duran was working with his Zerg-Protoss hybrids? or what he really is as he implies he works for a "higher power"?

Just that alone hinted there may have been a sequel.

 

 

These are books your writing? ill be sure to pick up the copies if you get them puplished.

[lonewolfkai]

 

True, but even if the game play hasn't changed much it adds more to the story. lore fans like myself get to find out more about the game, like :

Will Nova play a big role in the game? what about Arcturus Mensk? will we know what the plan was that LT. Duran was working with his Zerg-Protoss hybrids? or what he really is as he implies he works for a "higher power"?

Just that alone hinted there may have been a sequel.

 

 

These are books your writing? ill be sure to pick up the copies if you get them puplished.

 

Oh I know, I loved the story of SC too, and I hate that the pricing is driving me away from learning more of it.

 

Thanks for saying so on the books. I'm still way off from publishing. I keep saying just a year and It'll be ready, but I said that 2 years ago. :huh: :whistling:

[Thor.]

real thoughts about Starcraft.

 

One thing about starcraft is why did it take soo long for it to be developed, i mean its a rtc with dated graphics, it should of been released at least 2 years after starcraft was released. That really bothered me.

 

in all i might get this game. Stll waiting for diablo 3 though. In all the game play itself is good, that's what really matters :thumbsup: .

[Vagrant0]

real thoughts about Starcraft.

 

One thing about starcraft is why did it take soo long for it to be developed, i mean its a rtc with dated graphics, it should of been released at least 2 years after starcraft was released. That really bothered me.

 

in all i might get this game. Stll waiting for diablo 3 though. In all the game play itself is good, that's what really matters :thumbsup: .

Probably because the graphics were an issue. Starcraft (like diablo 2) uses image based sprites which moves on a 2d plane with fake 3d elements. Command and Conquer is much the same, earlier incarnations also used sprites on a 2d plane, and even when it started moving into using a 3d plane with 2d sprites, it still didn't look right. The problem of course is that it's not easy to have 3d elements on a 3d plane when you're talking about having a few hundred units on the screen at a time. You can get around this by using basic shapes and instancing, but there are limitations as to what you can do without it having a negative impact on the way things look. Starcraft 2 was probably started a few years ago when this technology wasn't quite as scarce, but was shelved because the company didn't like how it looked and was already having second thoughts about the franchise after Starcraft:Ghost went nowhere. The difference is that now, after their WoW franchise has started to dwindle, and that technology can handle the demands of a fully 3d RTS, they've taken a second look at the idea and decided to run with it. Starcraft 2 isn't sprite based, but is polygon based. This means that you can zoom in on a single unit and get something other than pixelated garbage. It also has havoked systems, so when things explode, their pieces don't fly and bounce around in predictable, boring patterns. Diablo 3 is being handled in a similar situation.

 

Although the timing may seem weird when compared with other games that get sequal after sequal, by having so much time between series, they can appeal to not only old-school fans, but also the younger generation, and prolong the life of the series. If Blizzard did this, we'd be playing Diablo 6 by now and remarking on how the series is getting too stale to show an interest in and wondering what sort of excuse they can come up with to bring him back in the next game.

[lonewolfkai]

You almost really need a 2d surface to effectively play a RTS if you think about it. It just makes sense.

 

What I'd like to see in a RTS is both elements. Have the overhead 2d plane for normal gaming and strategy forming, and then once the commands and action starts, zoom in onto a 3rd element, as if you're in the action. WC3 touched base on this a little and came close, but it was still really lacking what I would have thought for.

 

What would even be cooler is if you could actually become one of the units and fight with them. Now that would be sweet.

[Vagrant0]

You almost really need a 2d surface to effectively play a RTS if you think about it. It just makes sense.

 

What I'd like to see in a RTS is both elements. Have the overhead 2d plane for normal gaming and strategy forming, and then once the commands and action starts, zoom in onto a 3rd element, as if you're in the action. WC3 touched base on this a little and came close, but it was still really lacking what I would have thought for.

Well, the 3d in this case is to allow for zooming and detail beyond what could be achieved with sprites. Kids these days just want flashy stuff. I'm sure if has other benefits, such as being able to view the fight from something other than 3/4 perspective, having units move through actual structures which can be looked around instead of it being just a graphic mask.

 

What would even be cooler is if you could actually become one of the units and fight with them. Now that would be sweet.

Interplay and a few others tried this, Sacrifice comes to mind and is a 1st person (outside camera) RTS. Spellforce also has this (although it's still at the 3/4 perspective with a quasi-2d planar area (or maybe I just didn't have reason to rotate the camera)), but more often than not your character just sits idle at base.