StarCraft II

[Jonlissla]

*looks at screenshots on website*

those are the graphics, THOSE ARE THE GRAPHICS???????

they suck i really expected them to be better then that, their only marginally better then the graphics of starcraft 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!

damn they should at least be as good as the ones on dawn of war, which has good graphics.

speaking of DoW, SC is like warhammer, the SC terran are like the space marines and the zerg a like the tyranids, has anyone else noticed that??

 

Some Warhammer fans complained at StarCraft for being a complete rip-off of the Warhammer 40K universe, as the Terrans were awfully inspired by the Space Marines. Same with the Zerg, inspired by the Tyranids, and the Protoss slightly inspired by the Tau.

 

However, I would not complain at the graphics. It's made a little 'cartoonish' just to resemble the original game, and hopefully to preserve that feeling.

 

So far, it seems promising.

[ninja_lord666]

Probably. The RTS genere in general has fallen into the same old "build alot of one type of unit as fast as possible, rush into enemy base" stuff. Diablo 3 or even a Diablo MMO would have been a better money making decision. Even a starcraft MMO would have more merit than another RTS.

That may be the easiest way, but not everyone does RTS games like that. I, personally, prefer a more strategic approach. I build up my defenses while slowly chipping away at the enemy so as to minimize my losses and maximize the enemies. Take BFME2 for example, I build as many *useful* walls and fortresses as I can then send a small band of fully upgraded soldiers to take down a small portion of the enemy after which I'll build a fortress inside the enemy's territory which will ultimately obliterate them. Doing that also helps me obtain millions of resources each battle :P . However, it always takes a long time.

[crazydave]

*looks at screenshots on website*

those are the graphics, THOSE ARE THE GRAPHICS???????

they suck i really expected them to be better then that, their only marginally better then the graphics of starcraft 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Are you just looking at the screens, or did you watch the gameplay trailer( Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4 ) You cant tell me those are bad graphics. From what I can tell, they are also using the Havok engine, so its going to have physics.

[Vagrant0]

*looks at screenshots on website*

those are the graphics, THOSE ARE THE GRAPHICS???????

they suck i really expected them to be better then that, their only marginally better then the graphics of starcraft 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Are you just looking at the screens, or did you watch the gameplay trailer( Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4 ) You cant tell me those are bad graphics. From what I can tell, they are also using the Havok engine, so its going to have physics.

I concur. From the screenshots it looks like the usual fixed isometric with just better looking sprites. Watch the videos, you'll see that this isn't the case, but it still manages to keep the old school feel. Some of the new units look pretty cool too.

[thejake1453]

Probably. The RTS genere in general has fallen into the same old "build alot of one type of unit as fast as possible, rush into enemy base" stuff. Diablo 3 or even a Diablo MMO would have been a better money making decision. Even a starcraft MMO would have more merit than another RTS.

That may be the easiest way, but not everyone does RTS games like that. I, personally, prefer a more strategic approach. I build up my defenses while slowly chipping away at the enemy so as to minimize my losses and maximize the enemies. Take BFME2 for example, I build as many *useful* walls and fortresses as I can then send a small band of fully upgraded soldiers to take down a small portion of the enemy after which I'll build a fortress inside the enemy's territory which will ultimately obliterate them. Doing that also helps me obtain millions of resources each battle :P . However, it always takes a long time.

 

man i wished more people would play like you, rather then rush in, i hate rushers and the only way it seems that i can win is by rushing, i have to be something i hate! so BFME2 i just be the dwarves, build a couple of battalions of warriors and axe throwers, a few catapults and i've practicly won, its so easy to win from there. theres no fun in rushing its seems every one does it, so i have to do it other wise i get wasted

 

 

oh and i just watched the gameplay demo just then, the graphics are ok but the could be better

[Peregrine]

Surprise, surprise, Starcraft II, and it looks like it's just Starcraft with better graphics. Shock and horror, Blizzard going for the easy money again? After WoW and all the Diablo II developers leaving, I'm not at all surprised.

 

My prediction: it'll suck, it'll have nothing at all innovative, and the legions of fanboys will buy it and praise it as god's gift to gaming anyway.

Probably. The RTS genere in general has fallen into the same old "build alot of one type of unit as fast as possible, rush into enemy base" stuff. Diablo 3 or even a Diablo MMO would have been a better money making decision. Even a starcraft MMO would have more merit than another RTS.

 

Oh, the sad thing is, it's going to be an excellent money-making decision. If anything, it's a perfect money-making decision. It's a safe, non-controversial move developing a mass-appeal game, just look at WoW for an example. And even if it sucks, the legions of blizzard fanboys pre-ordered it the moment they saw the word "Starcraft" on the box.

 

No need to be so negative! ;D We all know that the game will never live up to the original StarCraft, and it will problably be one of those games where you "build alot of one type of unit as fast as possible, rush into enemy base" as Vagrant0 put it.

 

Live down to the original Starcraft you mean...

 

Starcraft might have been a half-decent game for its time, but from a modern point of view, it's almost unplayably bad. It's an interesting history lesson, but not something we should be using as an example to live up to.

 

And if you think Starcraft was anything but a "build alot of one type of unit as fast as possible, rush into enemy base" game, you really must have been smoking the good stuff. That's all there was to Starcraft's "strategy", better interface micromanagement + more clicks per second = more units = victory.

[Switch]

Surprise, surprise, Starcraft II, and it looks like it's just Starcraft with better graphics. Shock and horror, Blizzard going for the easy money again? After WoW and all the Diablo II developers leaving, I'm not at all surprised.

 

My prediction: it'll suck, it'll have nothing at all innovative, and the legions of fanboys will buy it and praise it as god's gift to gaming anyway.

Agreed. :P (Don't look so shocked!). I wouldn't call this a surprise so much as inevitable. Now Diablo 3, that would have been a surprise. Probably not as much of a cash cow (provided you don't count the secret cow level) though, as you say. Then again, with all the D2 developers gone maybe it's for the best.

[Dark0ne]

More than likely they're waiting on Hellgate: London before considering D3. Although I'm sure they've already done some design/ground work for D3 already.

[PaulEmil]

Physics and orbital platforms... <paul thinks of masses of little ragdolls getting blown off into the void, where they hang, indefinitely. He chuckles.> Oh wow. This is going to be entertaining, to say the least. And from what i've seen in the screenies, the 'splodes look good, and everyone loves 'splodes. It may be dumb strategy, but sometimes, dumb is fun...