EPTI don't want to upgrade or get a new computer... not now! not soon! maybe eventually.
[Translation] StarCraft 2 - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BlueMorning
United States96 Posts
I don't want to upgrade or get a new computer... not now! not soon! maybe eventually. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5094 Posts
| ||
|
Pretorian-[DMK]
Netherlands49 Posts
3D, well what am I supposed to say about that, if it is going to be like war3, it is most likely to be sucky. Perhaps not. Perhaps they will make it work. But there is also some hope, at least they didn't make any announcements about herocrap, creeps and upkeep. If these are to be added, we surely are fucked as bw gaming addicts. | ||
|
Terranlisk
Singapore1404 Posts
| ||
|
gulii
Sweden2791 Posts
| ||
|
TheosEx
United States894 Posts
1. I thought that most of the original engineers/progamers/producers of SC:BW already left Blizzard... If this is true, it could have a big impact on what type of game we will get. 2. I hate to break everyone's excitement, but I'm kind of thinking that Blizzard might just reannounce StarCraft Ghost instead of StarCraft 2. Either way, I'll be happy and will get either... even if it means I have to buy a new computer or XBox 360. 3. From what I've read in the thread, everyone is comparing what SC:BW is now to what SC 2 might be. I'm afraid there is no scale of comparison here. We're talking about two different games in two different decades with two different technologies available. The only thing similar is the company working on it and the "storyline + setting." I'm sure that if it is a success, people will just see it as simply another game. Like really, who compares Halo 2 to regular Halo nowadays that Halo 2 is so big? On the contrary, people who go back to regular Halo complain "because I can't dual wield... and the graphics suck ass." | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On April 26 2007 04:30 gulii wrote: Dont want it to come out. Come on...the proscence is huge!! and it's going be bigger when Sc2 will come out... | ||
|
d4d
Switzerland1066 Posts
On April 25 2007 19:50 Phyre wrote: When you say no one expects SC2 to be made out of the WC3 engine, I agree. I was responding to someone that was making a comment that seemed to allude to that idea. In terms of it being the closest thing to perfection in terms of 3D RTS games, what makes you say that? Who in their right mind would make a game just to prep for WoW? First off, if the engine can be used for both games that saves a lot of time. Second, knowing full well that WoW is the far larger potential cash cow it would make sense to make sure the Warcraft franchise is fresh in everyone's minds. I'm not saying Blizz would throw away the money they invested to make WC3, I'm sure they produced it with intent to make plenty of profit just like any other game. Now you're mentioning that War3 is the second best RTS? Opinion, not fact. As far as Blizz trying their best, that's possible. I don't work for Blizz so I don't know. It is possible that if the engine was geared towards WoW in the first place then War3 was compromised to some extent. I'm fully aware that is purely speculation, but it as much backing as your opinion that War3. It's just a guess on my part. In response to your last question, the fact that War3's engine was used to develop WoW has plenty to do with my theory. Actually, that's what drove me to think about this possibility. Lastly, if you're going to disagree with me you can do it without sounding hostile. I appreciate any facts (not opinions) that you can throw my way to prove that my theory incorrect. I'm just throwing ideas around. Sorry if I sounded hostile, I was... it's just that believing a game was produce just to refresh people memory of the lore is beyond my understanding... The WoW team was put together during w3 development if I recall correctly and was made of ppl working on w3. And because it was 3d, why re-invent the wheel? So they used w3 engine as a start off, Imported the models then improved w3 engine to make it able to do all the fun stuff WoW does. But nothing, nothing, point to the fact Blizzard had the idea of WoW before w3 and made w3 just to prep for WoW.... That is a biased and torturous theory to me. But, yeah, it's fun to trow ideas around... Just don't be surprise when the wind slap them back into your face. And btw, you need facts to prove a theory right, not the other way around. As for stating w3 is the second best RTS out there, well it's my opinion, and it's open to debate... maybe it's the third... Anyways we all agree SC is first. If you want to know my top 5 RTS, I'll give it to you : 1. Starctaft, 2. Warcraft 3, 3. Down of War, 4. Warcraft 2, 5. Mega-lo-Mania. That is my opinion. Now the only facts to back that up is that 7 years after it's release there are still major tournament of w3, that it has a huge player community. No other RTS except our baby can claim a career like that. Now let's talk about Counter Strike... It is very well possible that in fact counter-strike was created by the CIA to prep USA for 9/11... So that that terrorist would be fresh in their mind. It's very possible I think, please someone prove that wrong with facts. | ||
|
gulii
Sweden2791 Posts
On April 26 2007 04:38 ShcShc wrote: and it's going be bigger when Sc2 will come out... But its evolving. I think SC1 still gonna be the only game. | ||
|
Zea!
9589 Posts
 | ||
|
Pretorian-[DMK]
Netherlands49 Posts
Two different games? Uhmm no, I hate to say it, but every RTS game is measured to the standard of Starcraft: Brood War. So we have to compare a possible Starcraft 2 to SC:BW. Another argument why SC2 has to follow it's predecessor is because of it's name. If they want to create another RTS with different elements and want to test shit out, simply call the game Herocraft or something like that. But not starcraft, that name should not be abused for some testgame. True the original starcraft team has left blizzard (which is a shame), but that doesn't mean they can recreate such a setting and gameplay. They have to, I mean it is starcraft! It is not a warcraft game or something boring as that. Furthermore I do not understand why you use an argument about Halo, that game and it's successor suck compared to other less hypes FPS games. Another reason why you can't compare HALO to Starcraft is the same as you can't compare chess with checkers. Ofcourse if you really really want to, HALO would be tic-tac-toe, warcraft 3 checkers, and starcraft chess. | ||
|
gameguard
Korea (South)2131 Posts
| ||
|
Belial-
United States132 Posts
 ) speculate what SC2 will be all day, and with the supposed announcement looming over us anticipation and fear of dissapointment are probably equally heavy in all of our minds... However, I guess all we can do is wait and hope that blizzard notices the reasons BW has remained so big for so long. We can only hope that they keep the SC "formula" intact. Pray that they realize that the largest communities that still support this game are the largest pool of information they will find as far as what we want and expect from SC2 to make it as wildly succesful and long-lasting as it's predecessor. When you think about it, it really wouldn't make sense to do it any other way. This train of thought gives me confidence and raises my level of anticipation for SC2, despite my undying love for SC and BW | ||
|
gameguard
Korea (South)2131 Posts
On April 26 2007 05:14 Pretorian-[DMK] wrote: @TheosEx Two different games? Uhmm no, I hate to say it, but every RTS game is measured to the standard of Starcraft: Brood War. So we have to compare a possible Starcraft 2 to SC:BW. Another argument why SC2 has to follow it's predecessor is because of it's name. If they want to create another RTS with different elements and want to test shit out, simply call the game Herocraft or something like that. But not starcraft, that name should not be abused for some testgame. True the original starcraft team has left blizzard (which is a shame), but that doesn't mean they can recreate such a setting and gameplay. They have to, I mean it is starcraft! It is not a warcraft game or something boring as that. Furthermore I do not understand why you use an argument about Halo, that game and it's successor suck compared to other less hypes FPS games. Another reason why you can't compare HALO to Starcraft is the same as you can't compare chess with checkers. Ofcourse if you really really want to, HALO would be tic-tac-toe, warcraft 3 checkers, and starcraft chess. do you realize the change warcraft had going from wc2 ---> wc3 | ||
|
Pretorian-[DMK]
Netherlands49 Posts
Edit Let me say why, Heroes Upkeep (which they increased after a while) Creeps random drops (which they changed). Slow, not much action. Not much base management. It almost looked like Zileas was in control of this game. And battles take forever. | ||
|
Mannerheim
766 Posts
On April 26 2007 05:17 gameguard wrote: I really doubt they can keep the same pace of SC in a 3D setting. Look at any other 3D RTS. It just doesnt work. I think itll be closer to W3 than SC in terms gameplay. More streamlined, convenient, etc. Its just the way rts is heading these days. From recent games, CnC 3 is fast paced, and the 3D camera system is very bearable. You can rotate and zoom the camera if you want, but there's really no need to, ever, so it might as well be static. I don't think Wc3 should be compared to SC in terms of gameplay. Wc3 units have massive health/armor in comparison (it takes almost a minute for a tier1 unit to kill another tier1 unit) which makes for slower gameplay and less twitch micro (I'm not even going to mention heroes.. stupid concept in an RTS). CnC 3 is a better comparison, as like in SC, the units are weak and numerous. SC2, if it's really in the making, will be 3D and I'm confident they can make it work just fine. | ||
|
gameguard
Korea (South)2131 Posts
| ||
|
Pretorian-[DMK]
Netherlands49 Posts
| ||
|
eChoWns
Germany168 Posts
On April 26 2007 05:21 Pretorian-[DMK] wrote: Yeah and it sucked Edit Let me say why, Heroes Upkeep (which they increased after a while) Creeps random drops (which they changed). Slow, not much action. Not much base management. It almost looked like Zileas was in control of this game. And battles take forever. its only a matter of taste and you can debate on this for years... i have to say i never thought there will be a game which gives me more fun than SC][BW but then it happens WC3 appears and all the facts which u listed above are reasons for me to state it higher than bw its just more fun to play wc3 love 4on4 random team...thousands of strats and u will only understand it when u play wc3 as long as u played bw... | ||
|
Pretorian-[DMK]
Netherlands49 Posts
And probably why you like those elements more than real RTS elements is probably because you are more an RPG player than an RTS player. Or you just like RPG's more in general than RTS. I hate RPG games. | ||
| ||
