Starcraft 2 by 2008 - Page 4

wishterran

United States1045 Posts

January 16 2007 07:57 GMT

#61

time will tell whether or not we should take this seriously

if blizzard is purposely starting to hint at SC2, we'll all be the first to know...

mlaoxve

Sweden165 Posts

January 16 2007 08:08 GMT

#62

I cant imagine zerglings running around in 3D good enough

also, the brownish feeling of the original game and the other colours would have to stay, cause the feel of starcraft is cause of the amazing environments and the colours used

stuthedog

Burundi262 Posts

January 16 2007 09:43 GMT

#63

they should just add three more races to starcraft through an expansion pack. any 3d or crap like that simply wont be starcraft.

Yogurt

United States4258 Posts

January 16 2007 09:52 GMT

#64

just gimme wgt

i'm fine with this game - maybe update the ai a little, and patch a few things - add a few units or two

i guess i just want another brood war

like more then one war of the broods

SolaR-

United States2685 Posts

January 16 2007 09:54 GMT

#65

im looking forward to a new sc, and i wont mind 3d but i just dont want heros and creeps n shit. I doubt that they will make it like wc3 tho. I think most ppl are just paranoid

pr0n

United States277 Posts

January 16 2007 11:42 GMT

#66

On January 16 2007 18:43 stuthedog wrote:
they should just add three more races to starcraft through an expansion pack. any 3d or crap like that simply wont be starcraft.

3 More races? I can tell why you only have 28 posts. Balancing 6 races (TWENTY ONE MATCH-UPS) would be utterly impossible (unless every race is a mirror of another one). Recently I've started wondering if 4 would even be a good idea. I think they should add max one race, or just add/change units/tech of the current 3.

SirKibbleX

United States479 Posts

January 17 2007 08:49 GMT

#67

There are plenty of games that throw out large numbers of races, although usually with only minor variations (read: WH40K DOW, AOE series, Generals ZH). I think the only lofty goal left in RTS, and the only company who would have the time to work for balance of that many races would be Blizz. Therefore, I think a new graphics engine (an excellent 3-D or an _ASTOUNDING_ 2D) would be a nice target to shoot, but the key to the game will be the balance. Starcraft may have been an accident, but it definitely took Blizzard a good deal of time to sort out the proper values, matchups, counters, etc. I'd imagine, with a larger team, a larger budget, and the goals of creating a game of such obscene strategic flexability and scope and a perfectly balanced, competitive environment, Blizzard could once again corner the market on RTS against EA/Westwood, Chris Taylor, Sierra (lol publisher in-fighting, die vivendi!) and more.

Drowsy

United States4876 Posts

January 17 2007 09:27 GMT

#68

Beta spots to bgh/fastest players, not us low money NOOBIES obviously. I'm shooting for about 2k12 maybe 2010, BUT NOT 11!

j0ehoe

United States2705 Posts

January 17 2007 09:29 GMT

#69

i usually think its gay, but cell shading would look real nice for sc2 i think =o

Kennigit

Canada19447 Posts

January 17 2007 09:39 GMT

#70

As long as Uwe Bowl doesn't get the rights to a movie im happy with whatever Blizzard produces

CaucasianAsian

Korea (South)11579 Posts

January 17 2007 09:41 GMT

#71

On January 17 2007 18:27 Drowsy wrote:
Beta spots to bgh/fastest players, not us low money NOOBIES obviously. I'm shooting for about 2k12 maybe 2010, BUT NOT 11!

the world will end in 2012. I want to play it before i die!!!

(or so the aztecs believe...)

pariah

United States29 Posts

January 17 2007 09:43 GMT

#72

SC2, if it comes out, will make ridiculous amounts of money. Of course Blizzard knows this, and this reason alone should give you hope.

I worry about the design team though, as Blizzard has lost some employees throughout the years and gained some new ones. I haven't really kept track though - has anyone?

pr0n

United States277 Posts

January 17 2007 12:23 GMT

#73

On January 17 2007 18:43 pariah wrote:
SC2, if it comes out, will make ridiculous amounts of money. Of course Blizzard knows this, and this reason alone should give you hope.

I worry about the design team though, as Blizzard has lost some employees throughout the years and gained some new ones. I haven't really kept track though - has anyone?

Yes, they'll make what they make in a couple months off WoW.

Drowsy

United States4876 Posts

January 17 2007 12:42 GMT

#74

Pr0n speaks the truth, fact is, WoW, and mmorpgs in general, are far more profitable than games of any other genre. It's not necessarily because of the monthly dues either, that covers the server hardware and some extra, but they aren't making a fortune on it alone as many would believe. I think that the main reason mmorpgs like wow are so successful is because they're so approachable. Any old 12 year old can pick it up and be competative, whereas rts/fps can be immensely complicated and multifaceted, they can take years of practice and learning and natural talent to be competetive at. Mmorpgs appeal to the people who are turned off by the dedication and patience needed to be competitive at a game like broodwar. Those 75 days /played you put into wow to get level 60 with your full tier 2 set isn't even comparable to the effort the A- pgt player had to put in, and he actually had to be analytical, you just had to do the same shit over and over again. Not to mention, the goal of most mmorpgs isn't simply to best your opponents, so if you're just not a competitive person by nature, you can still have some fun with an mmorpg. The purepwnage guy, Jeremy, articulated it really well. Mmorpgs aren't really competitive games, it's more like a hobby, it's like assembling a train set or a model airplane in your basement. It, the train or your mmorpg character gets better and grows as you put in more hours, but the actual skill involved is fairly minimal, and it mostly boils down to who can spend the most tedious hours.

So, to end the rant, I do believe that blizzard, now that they've put their foot in the waters of the mmorpg market, will doubtfully ever leave it. It's more profitable, and they're still a company who's goal has to be to earn profits. Yes, I know we all wish they were some eccentric charity obsessed with creating high quality competetive online games, but they've got bills to pay, and who's to blame them? Don't expect sc2 soon, don't even expect it ever, don't expect anything that isn't an mmorpg. If they do churn something out, be grateful, otherwise project revolution is pretty much the best you can hope for.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

January 17 2007 14:08 GMT

#75

Come on, just because WoW is making money doesn't mean blizzard isn't doing other projects. To totally shift gears into doing all morpg is a drastic decision that not only involves the question of "what makes more money" but also "what does blizzard stand for."

pariah

United States29 Posts

January 17 2007 14:38 GMT

#76

I agree Blizzard will stick to their cash cow WoW and MMORPGs in general, but who says Blizzard can't have two teams? They have before, after all...

On January 17 2007 23:08 oneofthem wrote:
Come on, just because WoW is making money doesn't mean blizzard isn't doing other projects. To totally shift gears into doing all morpg is a drastic decision that not only involves the question of "what makes more money" but also "what does blizzard stand for."

They don't stand for anything. They exist for one reason: to make money.

useLess

United States4781 Posts

January 17 2007 14:50 GMT

#77

Games like WoW may bring in the cash, but its stuff like Starcraft that earn them good rep.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

January 17 2007 15:17 GMT

#78

They don't stand for anything. They exist for one reason: to make money.

Brand recognition, plus, if there is money to be earned, why not go ahead and earn them? I dont think the microeconomics of the situation is all that damning.

Heen

Korea (South)2178 Posts

January 17 2007 15:59 GMT

#79

It won't be that hard to recreate BW as we know into 3D but with improvements like no scarab errors etc. A lot of you are just biased about WC3 which leads you to draw the conclusions about 3D engines.

They just need an extra race, a plausible storyline, and a better multiplayer system which will be easy.

Of course, there's the balancing issue but.. I have faith ~_~;

What I'm really thinking is.. this game has been out for too long and I've been in touch with this game from the very beginning but have wasted my time with a whole bunch other games. People have gotten too good! I want to kick some ass. I need a new game so we can all start from scratch

The Storyteller

Singapore2486 Posts

January 17 2007 16:24 GMT

#80

On January 18 2007 00:59 Heen wrote:
It won't be that hard to recreate BW as we know into 3D but with improvements like no scarab errors etc. A lot of you are just biased about WC3 which leads you to draw the conclusions about 3D engines.

They just need an extra race, a plausible storyline, and a better multiplayer system which will be easy.

Of course, there's the balancing issue but.. I have faith ~_~;

What I'm really thinking is.. this game has been out for too long and I've been in touch with this game from the very beginning but have wasted my time with a whole bunch other games. People have gotten too good! I want to kick some ass. I need a new game so we can all start from scratch

Actually, any change in the game engine would change the game fairly drastically. Things like muta stacking, micro timing, vulture sliding by laying mines and the other fancy tricks we've come to associate with Starcraft depend very much on its unique 2D engine.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Starcraft 2 by 2008 - Page 4

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming