<스타크래프트2>가 5월 19일 개최되는 블리자드 월드와이드 인비테이셔널(WWI)에서 전세계 최초로 공개된다.
StarCraft 2 will be revealed for the first time to the world at Blizzard's World Wide Invitational (WWI) on May 19th.
25일 게임업계에 따르면 블리자드 엔터테인먼트 코리아(이하 블리자드 코리아)는 5월 19일 시작되는 WWI에서 <스타크래프트2>의 동영상과 게임 내용을 최초로 발표할 것으로 확인됐다. 또, <스타크래프트2> 핵심 개발자들이 현장에 참석해 질의응답 시간도 진행된다.
On the 25th, according to the game developers, it has been confirmed that Blizzard Entertainment Korea (aka Blizzard Korea) will present VODs and game content at the WWI that is starting on May 19th. Also, StarCraft 2's main developers will also attend to answer some questions.
<스타크래프트2>는 3D로 개발되고 있으며, 새로운 종족이 추가되고 기존 종족의 유닛과 특성에 많은 변화가 있을 것으로 확인됐다. 이외의 자세한 내용은 WWI에서도 일부만 공개될 것으로 보인다.
It has been confirmed that StarCraft 2 is being developed in 3D, a new race has been added and existing units' characteristics will have many changes. Additional details will only be revealed to certain parts of WWI.
블리자드는 이번 <스타크래프트2> 발표를 위해 100개가 넘는 해외 매체들을 WWI에 초청했으며, 서울 올림픽 체조경기장과 펜싱 경기장을 동시에 사용하는 단일 게임행사 최대 규모의 공간을 마련했다.
Blizzard has invited over 100 international media and has prepared both Seoul Olympic Gymnastics Stadium and Fencing Stadium for this event -- the biggest area ever for a short-term game event.
<스타크래프트2>의 발표 작업은 현재 극비리에 진행되고 있으며, 블리자드 코리아 핵심 관계자들만 정확한 내용과 상황을 알고 있는 것으로 알려졌다. 블리자드가 차기작을 발표할 때 항상 그래왔듯 ‘최고의 깜짝 발표’를 선보이기 위해 5월 19일 이전에는 어떤 정보 공개나 발표도 없을 예정이다.
StarCraft 2's announcement preparation is proceeding with secrecy, and only the core group at Blizzard Korea knows the specific details and situation. As they have done in the past, Blizzard is not planning to reveal or release any details for the "best surprise announcement".
하지만 이미 블리자드 전현직 관계자를 통해 신뢰성 있는 정보가 흘러나오고 있으며, 블리자드 본사에서 근무했다가 퇴사한 북미 개발자들의 지인을 통해 <스타크래프트2>의 제작 사실과 이번 WWI에서 발표가 있을 것이라는 사실이 확인됐다.
However, trustworthy information is being leaked from previous Blizzard employees, and through an acquaintance of ex-Blizzard North employees, StarCraft 2's development and its announcement at the WWI has been confirmed.
지난 2월 28일 내한했던 마이크 모하임 블리자드 대표도 “5월 WWI에서 깜짝 놀랄만한 발표가 있을 것”이라며 차기작 발표에 대한 암시를 준 바 있으며, 블리자드 코리아도 25일 보도자료를 통해 미공개 차기작의 발표를 예고한 상태다.
Last February 28th, Blizzard president, Mike Morhaime, has hinted that "At the WWI in May, there will be a surprise announcement" for the announcement of a sequel, Blizzard Korea has confirmed, on the 25th, an unrevealed sequel's announcement.
블리자드 코리아의 박영목 이사는 “차기작에 관해서는 현재 답변 드릴 내용이 없다. 차기작은 19일 WWI에서 발표할 것이다. 19일 현장에 와서 확인하기 바란다”며 <스타크래프트2>가 19일날 발표될 차기작임을 확인해 달라는 요청을 거부했다.
Blizzard Korea's Park Young-Mok director said "There is not content available for answer for the sequel. The sequel will be released at the WWI on the 19th. Please confirm it at the site on the 19th" and denied the confirmation on if StarCraft 2 is indeed the sequel that is to be announced on the 19th.
MBC게임의 이상호 국장은 “솔직히 기대 반, 걱정 반이다. 일단 2편이 e스포츠 중계에 적합한 형태가 된다면 신규 게이머도 많이 유입되고 업계도 더욱 발전할 것이다. 그러나 만일 <워크래프트 3>처럼 중계하기 쉽지 않은 형태로 나올 경우 <스타크래프트> 팬들은 2편에 몰리는데 정작 기존 리그는 하향세를 겪을 수도 있을 것이다”라며 신중한 입장을 보였다.
MBC Game's Lee Sang-Ho head said "Frankly, it's half anticipation and half worry. If SC2 is released in a form that is compatible with e-sports broadcast, there will be many new gamers and the entire industry will develop. However if it comes out in a form that is not easy to broadcast, like WarCraft 3, StarCraft fans will focus on the sequel while the original league will suffer a decline", expressing a cautious mindset.
온게임넷의 <스타크래프트> 해설자 엄재경 씨는 “블리자드는 이미 <워크래프트 3>를 통해서 국내 게이머와 해외 게이머 간의 성향 차이를 파악했을 것이다. 때문에 보다 밸런스가 맞춰진 형태의, e스포츠를 염두에 둔 형태로 나올 것으로 기대한다. 반면, e스포츠 리그는 현재 <스타크래프트> 중심의 판도가 당장 바뀌진 않을 것으로 생각하며, <스타크래프트2>를 중심으로 한 새로운 리그가 형성되어 전체적인 시장 규모가 커질 것으로 본다. 게이머의 한 사람으로서 정말 기대된다”고 말했다.
OnGameNet's StarCraft commentator Um Jae-Kyung said "Blizzard has probably already grasped the difference between this nation's gamers and foreign gamers' difference in inclination through WarCraft 3. So I'm hoping for a more balanced structure, a structure with e-sports in mind. However, I believe that the e-sports league will continue to focus on StarCraft and a new league focusing on StarCraft 2 will form, the industry growing bigger as a result. As a gamer, I'm really looking forward to it.
올해로 3회째를 맞는 블리자드 ‘월드와이드 인비테이셔널’은 5월 19일과 20일 이틀간 서울 올림픽 체조경기장과 역도 경기장에서 열리며, <워크래프트3> 래더 시즌5 아시아 지역 예선과 제1회 <월드 오브 워크래프트> 아레나 토너먼트 오프라인 지역 결선 등 다양한 e스포츠 경기 및 이벤트가 마련될 예정이다
Blizzard's WWI is on its third year and will take place from May 19th to 20th at the Seoul Olympic Gymnastics Stadium and Weight Lifting Stadium (translator's note: I thought it was fencing? o.O). Many e-sports games as well as events such as WarCraft 3 ladder season 5 Asia region preliminaries, for the first time, a World of Warcraft Arena Tournament Off-line Regional Finals will take place.
3D? I'm pissed. Unit control in 3D games is horrible. The only way I will accept it is if it is zoomed out a little further or the same as it is now, unlike wc3, so I can see all my army instead of a 10 foot tall marine taking up the entire screen.
If you want to play an imbalanced homosexual game where it's just neat to learn all the different units and tech trees play Supreme Commander or Rise of Legends. Leave the too many neat ideas for another game. Professional gaming > Neat Ideas in importance. Pace, Balance, etc.
They still don't have shit on BW.
Edit: Son of a bitch, I went against my first post. God I'm a stupid tit.
in all honesty i was hoping they would never produce a starcraft 2. they should just keep building on what they have, modify, upgrade, etc. "perfect" it, so to speak.
On April 25 2007 12:49 Aepplet wrote: in all honesty i was hoping they would never produce a starcraft 2. they should just keep building on what they have, modify, upgrade, etc. "perfect" it, so to speak.
On April 25 2007 12:49 Aepplet wrote: in all honesty i was hoping they would never produce a starcraft 2. they should just keep building on what they have, modify, upgrade, etc. "perfect" it, so to speak.
Agreed.
Plus im too old for new shit. Old dogs can't learn new tricks. I'll stick with BW.
does the writer mean someone at Blizz Korea gave away that SC2 is indeed the game to be announced at WWI2, but the Blizz Korea director Park Young-Mok denies it?
also how do we know this person from Blizz Korea actually said this?
not that i have any doubt that SC2 will be announced at WWI2, i already had a strong feeling that would happen.. but some people do not so I'm trying to understand this article
On April 25 2007 13:11 Raist wrote: i'm a bit lost on what this article is about
does the writer mean someone at Blizz Korea gave away that SC2 is indeed the game to be announced at WWI2, but the Blizz Korea director Park Young-Mok denies it?
also how do we know this person from Blizz Korea actually said this?
not that i have any doubt that SC2 will be announced at WWI2, i already had a strong feeling that would happen.. but some people do not so I'm trying to understand this article
Park Young-Mok is saying that he's not supposed to give anything away. He's not denying anything, as far as I can tell.
i'm most interested in OGN/MBC's take on this. i wonder if two leagues is really sustainable, i figure it'll be a gradual transition towards SC2.
also from the point of view of the pro teams i wonder how it'll work if the fan base moves over to SC2. will their players get their contracts moved over to SC2? will the original SC teams disband and the sponsors create new teams?
im sure soon after the WWI2 Blizzard will finally do their 'more details to come' of the upcoming Blizzcon.. saying what SC2 / D3 related things will be available at Blizzcon... lets pray they are handing out beta keys! (it would probably be just the keys for a beta release sometime in the future, not beta copies themselves)
Blizzard should bring a Testie down who understands the depths of the game from a pace / just knowing games point of view from all races to keep BW awesome while still allowing people to attempt implementing new things.
1st: Thx infinity for the translation. 2nd. To all anti SC2 people quiet your bitching and embrace the change. A lot of things will change some for the worse and some for the best. But people will play the game even if they say they won't, I don't know of any Blizz games that have sucked, so I have high expectations on this one. I'll play it, new faces for programming will appear and one will emerge to be Boxer (aka God ). So things will change it's meant to happen, if you don't play it younger gamers will it's the comming of a new era, even if it isn't our own. :p
I think the most important thing to remember is that this will not be broodwar. The 3D environment alone makes it a completely different game without adding an extra race and extra units. If we expect E-sports to continue growing, then SC2 shouldn't be taken meerly as an evolution of its predecessor.
It has taken 10 years for starcraft to be balanced to the way it is today and i would say it is one of the most balanced if not the most balanced games ever created. When it gets released SC2 is going to look like a gong show in comparison - we cannot expect it to be a broodwar killer/replacer right off the bat. If both Blizzard and the community put in the amout of work that has been put into bw then there is no reason why it cannot be as great a success - it just will take time.
On April 25 2007 14:03 Kennigit wrote: I think the most important thing to remember is that this will not be broodwar. The 3D environment alone makes it a completely different game without adding an extra race and extra units. If we expect E-sports to continue growing, then SC2 shouldn't be taken meerly as an evolution of its predecessor.
It has taken 10 years for starcraft to be balanced to the way it is today and i would say it is one of the most balanced if not the most balanced games ever created. When it gets released SC2 is going to look like a gong show in comparison - we cannot expect it to be a broodwar killer/replacer right off the bat. If both Blizzard and the community put in the amout of work that has been put into bw then there is no reason why it cannot be as great a success - it just will take time.
We're all used to eating the finest steak around cooked by gourmet chefs that put time and effort into their creation. If they put the time and effort into it, and just give us a burger, no matter how much we dress it up it's going to be a fucking burger. We have a great community with a lot of good input, but regardless..
It can still be good, but you're not replacing steak with a burger sir.
I feel very sorry for the developers of this game, they have their work cut out for them to meet our standards. If it's the same pace of War3 or slower fuck it, I'm sticking to BW. Especially if they newb the game up.
That's some awesome ass news. I sincerely hope it doesn't take a turn for the worst though. Regardless, I'm still probably buying it the day it comes out .
On April 25 2007 13:52 MYM.Testie wrote: Blizzard should bring a Testie down who understands the depths of the game from a pace / just knowing games point of view from all races to keep BW awesome while still allowing people to attempt implementing new things.
Mail Blizzard and offer yourself to tests. I'm sure they need someone like you to make the game better, thanks to upcoming patches. Gogo Nick !
No one can know what's going to happen. Maybe it will be good, maybe it will suck. Maybe it will kill BW, maybe it will end up like wc:3, maybe we'll all love it and switch. But one thing's for sure, I'm scared and nervous.
On April 25 2007 14:03 Kennigit wrote: I think the most important thing to remember is that this will not be broodwar. The 3D environment alone makes it a completely different game without adding an extra race and extra units. If we expect E-sports to continue growing, then SC2 shouldn't be taken meerly as an evolution of its predecessor.
It has taken 10 years for starcraft to be balanced to the way it is today and i would say it is one of the most balanced if not the most balanced games ever created. When it gets released SC2 is going to look like a gong show in comparison - we cannot expect it to be a broodwar killer/replacer right off the bat. If both Blizzard and the community put in the amout of work that has been put into bw then there is no reason why it cannot be as great a success - it just will take time.
It has taken patch 1.08 for the game to be balanced... and that was not 10 years to my knowledge...
3d is friggin worrying. Not A SINGLE game in 3d has a gameplay as smooth as good old 2d sprite.
W3 was a humongous deception and I am very very very very afraid this will be the same.
I don't share Lee Sang-Ho point of view, it's 20% anticipation and 80% worry for me.
3D might be a bad thing, but Blizzard is known for doing things right, and being the one's with the "firsts", I think they will get it right! I have confidence in Blizzard.
On April 25 2007 12:38 infinity21 wrote:MBC Game's Lee Sang-Ho head said "Frankly, it's half anticipation and half worry. If SC2 is released in a form that is compatible with e-sports broadcast, there will be many new gamers and the entire industry will develop. However if it comes out in a form that is not easy to broadcast, like WarCraft 3, StarCraft fans will focus on the sequel while the original league will suffer a decline", expressing a cautious mindset.
although i don't believe this leak before i see media for myself, this is probaly the best statement of whats going to happen if they really release sc2.
That article was rather confusing. First it says how it's confirmed that blizzard will show SC2 on may 19th, and that the game is in 3D and has 4 races. then it says that the blizzard korea director won't even confirm that they are making SC2. Am I the only one who smells some bullshit here?
Maybe I'm just jaded after the 878978796 internet rumors I've already seen about SC2.
On April 25 2007 15:48 GoOdJo wrote: im almost 70% sure its going to suck now that its 3D, its going to be BW in a WC3 game engine. This is bullshit. I quit BW, just because of blizzard.
Wtf is with this attitude?
Do you honestly think blizzard is going to use outdated shit to release a new game? Do people think blizzard doesn't know that we don't want a 'slow' game? Just because WC3 was slow doesn't mean SC2 would also be...
In response to anyone that thinks they would make SC2 on the War3 engine I don't believe they will. It is my theory that War3 was really only made to get everyone ready for WoW. I remember reading that WoW was made with an advanced version of the War3 engine. A lot of people agreed that War3 was not what many of us wanted and the fact that War3 standard play has largely been eclipsed by DotA and other Custom Maps lends to the theory that War3 was somewhat half assed (not in production values) but excellent mod capabilities were built in. So by releasing War3 they've brought the Warcraft world back to the forefront of our memories, an engine that is easy to dev for, and whatever revenue was made off of the huge War3 sales. Sounds like a great prep for WoW. This is just my theory I came up with in the last 5 minutes, don't go nuts if you find a hole in it.
So basically what I'm saying is that I would imagine SC is a large enough franchise not to jeopardize by half assing anything unless they plan to release World of Starcraft shortly afterwards...
On April 25 2007 14:09 MYM.Testie wrote: We're all used to eating the finest steak around cooked by gourmet chefs that put time and effort into their creation. If they put the time and effort into it, and just give us a burger, no matter how much we dress it up it's going to be a fucking burger. We have a great community with a lot of good input, but regardless..
It can still be good, but you're not replacing steak with a burger sir.
I feel very sorry for the developers of this game, they have their work cut out for them to meet our standards. If it's the same pace of War3 or slower fuck it, I'm sticking to BW. Especially if they newb the game up.
respect for the "gourmet" many ppl mix it up with gourmand. anyways, someone stated we should have no worries as sc2 will come around 2011 if they announce it this year- true.
if the game switches to 3D it will lose it's speed. I mean what's the point- they already have Dota heroes that are 3D models of hydra/lurk/link n stufff, they just put those, replace heroes with sc:bw ones, put healing tents instead of medics to heal the army, give attack 50 to the command center/nexus/hatchery and voilla! an amazing sc2
there is a reason why sc:bw is the best. nobody respects the game because of it's graphics, how it shows the fish swimming in water, leaves falling down the trees, rocks falling off the cliffs as lings run down, etc.
P.S. bockit - if you check blizzard "public opinion" forums you'll see why sc2 won't have any of the things skilled gamers want - blizz ask for the public opinion and a bunch of kids swarm in saying "i want automatic micro, i want to see my hero marine cry for his lost medic,i want the game to require pentium10 so i'm the only one in my school who can play the game with such cool graphics, etc."
On April 25 2007 17:36 Phyre wrote: In response to anyone that thinks they would make SC2 on the War3 engine I don't believe they will. It is my theory that War3 was really only made to get everyone ready for WoW. I remember reading that WoW was made with an advanced version of the War3 engine. A lot of people agreed that War3 was not what many of us wanted and the fact that War3 standard play has largely been eclipsed by DotA and other Custom Maps lends to the theory that War3 was somewhat half assed (not in production values) but excellent mod capabilities were built in. So by releasing War3 they've brought the Warcraft world back to the forefront of our memories, an engine that is easy to dev for, and whatever revenue was made off of the huge War3 sales. Sounds like a great prep for WoW. This is just my theory I came up with in the last 5 minutes, don't go nuts if you find a hole in it.
So basically what I'm saying is that I would imagine SC is a large enough franchise not to jeopardize by half assing anything unless they plan to release World of Starcraft shortly afterwards...
Your world is wonderful and there are lullabies in it...
Seriously, the only sane thing you said here was that w3 has great modding tools...
Nobody expect SC2 to be made out of the w3 engine... But the w3 engine is the closest thing to perfection in terms of 3d rts... So I hope they do better, yes.
w3 made to "prep" ppl for WoW... Are you out of your mind!!!
The only hole there is in your theory is the one you pulled it from and it's called an ass.
Who in his right mind would invest millions to produce a game (the second best rts there is out there) just to advertise another project.... If w3 suck multiplayer, it's not because of an evil scheme of blizzard, it's because it suck. Blizzard has done their best with the game... and failed. Now yes, they used w3 engine to make early version of WoW... What has that to do with anything? The more I think about it the more I believe I am losing my time trying to answer your post... Why am I doing this? Dunno, shouldn't have bothered
blizzard didn't expect wow to turn out so big. eventually they upgraded it more and more and now they earned so much money on it I heard speculations they will make it free because they already earned the amount of money they expected to earn in next 6-10years or so. got this info from a guy that is in pc industry n stuff so dunno how much truth is in it :D
On April 25 2007 18:29 Dendra wrote: blizzard didn't expect wow to turn out so big. eventually they upgraded it more and more and now they earned so much money on it I heard speculations they will make it free because they already earned the amount of money they expected to earn in next 6-10years or so. got this info from a guy that is in pc industry n stuff so dunno how much truth is in it :D
No they said they will keep it with a monthly fee, except they will give all the money out to help mmorpg addicted youngsters. That is because they care. Someone close to the ice cream industry told me that. Don't know how much truth is in it, but it conflict with what your source said...
personally, i really think BW can develop more. You don't take a steak off the grill if it aint cooked yet. So i dont know wtf blizzard is doing SC2 NOW of all times. Hopefully in progaming BW wont die out, but in our communities BW will die out slowly considering how many people will go to SC2. This really hurts BW communitie if SC2 sucks >_<
On April 25 2007 18:48 GoOdJo wrote: personally, i really think BW can develop more. You don't take a steak off the grill if it aint cooked yet. So i dont know wtf blizzard is doing SC2 NOW of all times. Hopefully in progaming BW wont die out, but in our communities BW will die out slowly considering how many people will go to SC2. This really hurts BW communitie if SC2 sucks >_<
Maybe because the steak has been on the grill since 97? Im not sure how you like your steak :p . You just have to embrace this evolution rather than fight it. If SC2 sucks ass, then we aren't fucked (look at WC3, it's balls but it still has a decently sized community and massive tournys - infact is in more tournys internationally than bw) but it depends how you look at it. This will be a completely different game than SC2. An extra race? Extra/modified units? Build orders, strats, graphics are all going to be different so just think of it as a separate game and what it will add to esports.
The only thing that I can hope, IF SC2 does in fact turn out to be less than what the original was(who knows? maybe they can make it), that it won't die off (Like the situation of Halo 1, when Halo 2 came out)
On April 25 2007 17:36 Phyre wrote: In response to anyone that thinks they would make SC2 on the War3 engine I don't believe they will. It is my theory that War3 was really only made to get everyone ready for WoW. I remember reading that WoW was made with an advanced version of the War3 engine. A lot of people agreed that War3 was not what many of us wanted and the fact that War3 standard play has largely been eclipsed by DotA and other Custom Maps lends to the theory that War3 was somewhat half assed (not in production values) but excellent mod capabilities were built in. So by releasing War3 they've brought the Warcraft world back to the forefront of our memories, an engine that is easy to dev for, and whatever revenue was made off of the huge War3 sales. Sounds like a great prep for WoW. This is just my theory I came up with in the last 5 minutes, don't go nuts if you find a hole in it.
So basically what I'm saying is that I would imagine SC is a large enough franchise not to jeopardize by half assing anything unless they plan to release World of Starcraft shortly afterwards...
Your world is wonderful and there are lullabies in it...
Seriously, the only sane thing you said here was that w3 has great modding tools...
Nobody expect SC2 to be made out of the w3 engine... But the w3 engine is the closest thing to perfection in terms of 3d rts... So I hope they do better, yes.
w3 made to "prep" ppl for WoW... Are you out of your mind!!!
The only hole there is in your theory is the one you pulled it from and it's called an ass.
Who in his right mind would invest millions to produce a game (the second best rts there is out there) just to advertise another project.... If w3 suck multiplayer, it's not because of an evil scheme of blizzard, it's because it suck. Blizzard has done their best with the game... and failed. Now yes, they used w3 engine to make early version of WoW... What has that to do with anything? The more I think about it the more I believe I am losing my time trying to answer your post... Why am I doing this? Dunno, shouldn't have bothered
The warcraft 3 engine is what, 6-7 years old? Of course they'll use a much better engine now. And computers now are much faster than when war3 came out, so I suspect SC2 will have the same 200 supply cap. I also suspect the graphics will be far neater than war3, and the 3D nature of the game wont interfere with accurate unit control.
I am also quite sure that SC2 will have the same pace that SC does. I dont think Blizzard are too stupid to realize what a phenomenal success SC is. They'll probably keep the game dynamics similar, and just add more to it.
I personally can't watch televised wc3, I get bored because when there are more than a few units, combined with the fact that things take forever to kill each other, it just turns into a giant massive gloop of color where it's impossible to tell whether or not any actual strategy is being employed, let alone what is specifically happening at each instance. Also, as fusionsdf mentioned, it's really slow, which combined with armies avoiding each other before the battle makes the game doubly slow. There's also the matter of not knowing who is going to win. In starcraft, since your economy matters alot, the more of the map you control, the more likely you are to win, so even an first-time broodwar observer can tell most of the time who is winning just by looking at the minimap (big glob > small glob). In wc3, heroes and other powerful units imply that map control doesn't really matter as much as to who wins. Also alot of the watchability of broodwar comes from the excitement of the spectator, which is fueled by fancy, incredibly fast/accurate moves that look like they're impossible to do (dropship micro, marine micro, etc). This can only happen in a fast paced game where things die really fast. Furthermore, starcraft games mostly follow a clear pattern: start game, scout, expand, harrass, build up forces, move out or defend, battle until supremacy is reached, gg. All of the non-standard stuff is just icing on the cake. In order for an audience to like something, it has to have a certain amount of predictability to it (in order for something to be incredible, you need some standard to compare it to, right?), which also causes more excitement because you can see a clear favorite and underdog in almost every match. Finally, starcraft strategies can also change because of its mystical balance among 3 completely different races, which alters the gameplay just enough to make starcraft non-repetitive, which is a big plus to spectators, who like to see dynamic things, the more dynamic the better. So to summarize: The ideal spectator game would have: fast paced action, clear way of determining the winner, avenues for developing cute/fast/fancy moves, a standard of gameplay, a certain level of predictability, and a possibility of gameplay evolution.
On April 25 2007 18:24 d4d wrote: Your world is wonderful and there are lullabies in it...
Seriously, the only sane thing you said here was that w3 has great modding tools...
Nobody expect SC2 to be made out of the w3 engine... But the w3 engine is the closest thing to perfection in terms of 3d rts... So I hope they do better, yes.
w3 made to "prep" ppl for WoW... Are you out of your mind!!!
The only hole there is in your theory is the one you pulled it from and it's called an ass.
Who in his right mind would invest millions to produce a game (the second best rts there is out there) just to advertise another project.... If w3 suck multiplayer, it's not because of an evil scheme of blizzard, it's because it suck. Blizzard has done their best with the game... and failed. Now yes, they used w3 engine to make early version of WoW... What has that to do with anything? The more I think about it the more I believe I am losing my time trying to answer your post... Why am I doing this? Dunno, shouldn't have bothered
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.
I don't know what to say right now. SC2 would be pretty cool... but that would mean having to choose between the sequal to the game that I have hailed as the best game ever since 01,02 when I started playing it, and the sequal to my favorite game of all time. Then it's also the effect on the pro scene, the hope it sticks to its origins.
ARGH. I'm kind of hoping this is Diablo 3 so that I don't have to worry about this. Then again, SC2 would be sweet, but not.
As long as it doesn't turn out TOO bad that it'll take away the mad gameplay and skills - ALSO gotta consider if it's gay ass really fucking high requirements
why do i feel like SC2 will be the second coming of star wars
that is, while the original "series" of star wars were masterpieces (although return of the jedi had the fatally terrible ewoks), the prequels turned out to be true doo doo, in an attempt to cater to a broader, and younger audience
if there is a game equivalent of jar jar binks in SC2 i swear by the gods i will stick forks in my eyes
On April 25 2007 13:52 MYM.Testie wrote: Blizzard should bring a Testie down who understands the depths of the game from a pace / just knowing games point of view from all races to keep BW awesome while still allowing people to attempt implementing new things.
Mail Blizzard and offer yourself to tests. I'm sure they need someone like you to make the game better, thanks to upcoming patches. Gogo Nick !
Not necessary IMO, Blizzard Korea will surely hire many progamers to test SC2 carefully for them.
For SC2 whiners who think you are smarter in RTS game development than the best RTS developers themselves, please STFU. Warcraft3 has been out for 7 years and knowing its limitations doesn't mean that you are a God who understands everything about making games and Blizzard is just a bunch of lucky retards who just luckily invented SC from no where. And stop making posts like "OMG I won't play SC2", really, who cares? It has been 10 years and a sequel is inevitable, whether you like it or not.
On April 25 2007 13:52 MYM.Testie wrote: Blizzard should bring a Testie down who understands the depths of the game from a pace / just knowing games point of view from all races to keep BW awesome while still allowing people to attempt implementing new things.
Mail Blizzard and offer yourself to tests. I'm sure they need someone like you to make the game better, thanks to upcoming patches. Gogo Nick !
Not necessary IMO, Blizzard Korea will surely hire many progamers to test SC2 carefully for them.
For SC2 whiners who think you are smarter in RTS game development than the best RTS developers themselves, please STFU. Warcraft3 has been out for 7 years and knowing its limitations doesn't mean that you are a God who understands everything about making games and Blizzard is just a bunch of lucky retards who just luckily invented SC from no where. And stop making posts like "OMG I won't play SC2", really, who cares? It has been 10 years and a sequel is inevitable, whether you like it or not.
It's just their way of expressing their fear of what SC2 could do to the community if it isn't damn near perfect. I'm pretty sure they will all try it out irregardless of what they say.
On April 25 2007 13:52 MYM.Testie wrote: Blizzard should bring a Testie down who understands the depths of the game from a pace / just knowing games point of view from all races to keep BW awesome while still allowing people to attempt implementing new things.
Where can we find a Testie? I have a Teste they can borrow...
this whole 'will you buy it when it comes out' is completely pointless as everyone's opinions on SC2 will change once they announce it and give details
look guys, all the objections like "too little stuff die" or whatnot can be easily, easily balanced. without creating new RTS fans as its top priority wtih the game blizz has already a huge potential market already ready to buy up whatever it is that they are selling just by using hte starcraft name, so ya think why wont they make a good game and keep the moneytree going?
On April 25 2007 22:29 useless wrote: What Im really looking forward to is the continuation (and end) of the current storyline, as well as an expansive map editor.
i think warcraft 3 works quite well actually. i haven't had much time to develope second thought over myself but today i saw some war3 vods and it just seems like a different game, basically more micro-based, maybe a bit simpler in the end, but a fine game and decent spectator sport. it's true though that i think if this game does come out and be very different from starcraft one, there may never be a game that is macro based, nice and simple looking like chess, lacking in excessive variety of races and spells and units and features etc, like starcraft again for a very very long time. it will continue to be played on some level but if the pro scene did die that would be pretty sad. the game is good because it is old-great, and thus can never be replaced. the day needs to come at some point in history for the sake of e-gaming i think where progamers don't need to shift sports every 5 years to keep up with the times. ie some game has to stick around, and we have to be comfortable with something being old. the pros of starcraft i guess won't be that badly off. they can take some of their savings which they probably have anyway as they expect to get too old to hold onto their skill someday. and if worse comes to worst they'll have to go get their ged and live a normal life. also i wonder how non-buggy games will do to replace the quallity that selectively acceptable strategically useful bugs can bring.
my hope is that people aren't actually so simple as the mbc game head guy says, and go and buy the game and with that just stop playing bw. if the community is split, we could have a problem. i dunno what he meant by war3 being hard to televise?
On April 25 2007 22:29 useless wrote: What Im really looking forward to is the continuation (and end) of the current storyline, as well as an expansive map editor.
Man, lets just hope the people who are working on this are good and maybe have a excellent mastermind behind it. I'll support whatever they'll try to do. But I'm not expecting anything significant for the pro community.
I'm surprised how negative people are being given that, at least according to the rumor, Blizzard is being about as conservative as they realistically be with the sequel. In fact, if it's really as described, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviewers don't like it for not being "innovative" enough. I guess some people will never be happy with the sequel no matter what.
i just hope blizzard will have a Gosu to advise them how to make sc2, otherwise we will need pentium10 to even launch sc and 10mb/s net connection so that it doesn't lag. seriously, bw is about gameplay, graphics is diff story and is irrelevant for competitive gaming - if u want graphics go play flight simulator.
If they manage to fuck it up after 10 years of hearing why is SC BW so great and why WC3 sux; after collecting opinions/data; after being so damn cautious not to fuck it up. If they fuck it up now, they deserve a medal. Im expecting at least a good game.
How many of you actually remember/have read about how Blizzard develops games? Both Starcraft, Warcraft3 went throuh huge changes after e3 shows a.s.o. Even if there is a playable version somewhere in a blizzard office now, and plans of how to complete it. They will (usually) throw it all out of the window and start over again if it does not work. According to an article I read about diabloii they worked 15+ hours for a year, including saturday/sundays, to get it done.
What I am 100% sure of: - the final sc2 will be a success - it will have a unique "Blizzard" quality to it - sc2 will have a huge community - sc2 will be a best seller, award winning, and whatever game. - Blizzard puts 100% more effort into it than most people here seem to think.
What I am 50% sure of - it will have major shift in direction midways through it (like roleplaying being downplayed in wc3, starcraft made from new after being called wacraft in space a.s.o).
What I have no idea about: - bw addicts will "approve of it" - that I will play it more than bw.
A fourth race? Why o why do we need a fourth race? Well maybe we need a fourth race (for the storyline that is), but please do not let it be playable!
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.
I didn't read the entire thread, so I apologize if someone already brought these points up but if not...
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."
On April 25 2007 18:24 d4d wrote: Your world is wonderful and there are lullabies in it...
Seriously, the only sane thing you said here was that w3 has great modding tools...
Nobody expect SC2 to be made out of the w3 engine... But the w3 engine is the closest thing to perfection in terms of 3d rts... So I hope they do better, yes.
w3 made to "prep" ppl for WoW... Are you out of your mind!!!
The only hole there is in your theory is the one you pulled it from and it's called an ass.
Who in his right mind would invest millions to produce a game (the second best rts there is out there) just to advertise another project.... If w3 suck multiplayer, it's not because of an evil scheme of blizzard, it's because it suck. Blizzard has done their best with the game... and failed. Now yes, they used w3 engine to make early version of WoW... What has that to do with anything? The more I think about it the more I believe I am losing my time trying to answer your post... Why am I doing this? Dunno, shouldn't have bothered
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.
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.
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.
Well, we can (and will ) 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
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
Dude, wtf are you talking about. It is clear to see that you are not a TRUE gamer, but simply a StarCraft player. StarCraft is a great game but you need to face reality and see that it is only one game in the masses. Everything you say is only based on your limited knowledge of all other games and on your personal preferences.
First, it is what WE (StarCraft players) say... that is that StarCraft is the perfect game. Yes, I honestly believe that too, and so do many other people. But other people believe "their" game is perfect too. Just look at the success of other RTS games like Age of Empires and Command and Conquer. That is how WE judge games... based on our standard of StarCraft. That's not how EVERYONE does it.
Second, you think Halo is a horrible game? Okay buddy. That's why the thought that Halo 3 being released on the same day as PS3 was such a big deal last year. I bet if you made an online poll of how many people would buy an XBox 360 just to play Halo 3, you'd see some pretty big numbers. I know StarCraft is big, but that's because it's had nearly a decade to develop. Halo hasn't been out that long and it receives nearly as much attention as StarCraft. Obviously, the two games are different genres and natures, so there's no point in comparing the two, but you need to stop thinking your opinions are facts.
I think that you just don't understand what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that if StarCraft 2 is a success, regular StarCraft will dwindle eventually and noone will talk about it as much. If StarCraft 2 is a failure, then sure it will be compared to regular StarCraft, but then that subject will also eventually dwindle. They would be the same title, but ultimately different games.
hm..maybe i like it more to chill while playing WC3 is delicous to play it stoned u wont get stressed up ...i also like the units and abilities in war 3 more e.g. dispell with whisp and mass militia its just great haha But regarding the play modies u are right... i hardly play one 1on1 in wc3 per month... only 4on4 and 2on2 and then some footy too. BW 1on1>1on1 TFT. I cant understand people who think its easier to play wc3. There are just more aspects u have to concentrate on while playing e.g. heros upkeep and so on. So why are more creterias = easier to handle? If you want to be good in WC3 u have to find the perfect way to use heros(which one) and find the right time for exp/tech/... but maybe its more of a task in 4on4... because there are much more things which can happen... But BW is by far the most clear and fine tuned game...yeah it is nearly getting perfect.
I am true gamer, but unlike most other "true" gamers I have a high standard which most of the time is not met. They are easily pleased with great graphics and mediocre gameplay. Fine by me.
Just as I stated earlier, HALO is just a hype, it is not a great game. That most people like fancy graphics and a simple repetitive gameplay, fine, that is what the mob wants. That doesn't make the game good, just popular.
True, Starcraft will dwindle down, with or without starcraft 2. My point I was trying to make is, starcraft 2 should have the same gameplay and elements and not be an entirely different game. They tried it with war3 and according to me and a lot other gamers the game is not as good as it could have been.
This is awesome. I really hope they can pull off perfecting this game, but even if they fuck up the multiplayer I hope they still do a good job with the campaigns.
The best part is that this is all happening around my B-day :D
EDIT: Also, I'm not that worried about SC2 being bad at all. Consider that in the creation of this game they are collaborating with Korean e-sports, OGN and MBC, as well as the global SC community. I have to say with all of this input that chances are good that it will be at least fun to play.
Well, SC will never die if a bunch of people don't even want to give SC2 a chance. Blizzard has turned out quality work for ages, now, and I have no reason to believe that SC2 won't match up.
Games like C&C generals and C&C 3 have proven to me that you can have very slick and speedy control in a 3d environment. That's not to say it can't be improved upon with more intense unit-vs-unit micro or large differentials between races, but I've got no evidence that a 3d game can't do either of those, only that they haven't been done *yet*.
if you want to know what the game will look like -remember the announcement that Blizzard licensed the Havok physics engine.
Think of all the RTS games recently that have used Havok - AOE3 (I think a few of CC3/COH/ROL). It certainly won't look like War3 though - where the graphics and physics engine was made by Blizzard.
In terms of artistic direction the question is between cartoony/stylized vs real. I think stylized but not cartoony would work great - but for example, Ghost was a bit too cartoony.
Computer and graphics have developed so much since Warcraft III was released, Blizzard are not limited to make a slow paced game just because it is in 3D. I have faith in that Blizzard, knowing that they are able to make special and entertaining games which they have proved so many times over the years... And it will be nothing like Warcraft III.
OOh I am glad they announced sc2, but I am afraid they will fuck up another great universe. The last great game they delivered was Brood War, after that just 'fun' games. Not great just fun. I just want to have a great game instead of a fun game.
And the control in the CNC games, I just don't like the interface, way too much tabbing. Instead of direct hotkeys.
Please let me be wrong and we maybe get a great game
About the relaxing part, I think both of us really really want to see this game and have fun with it, that we discuss about some things. Well, that is part of it
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.
Dude, wtf are you talking about. It is clear to see that you are not a TRUE gamer, but simply a StarCraft player. StarCraft is a great game but you need to face reality and see that it is only one game in the masses. Everything you say is only based on your limited knowledge of all other games and on your personal preferences.
First, it is what WE (StarCraft players) say... that is that StarCraft is the perfect game. Yes, I honestly believe that too, and so do many other people. But other people believe "their" game is perfect too. Just look at the success of other RTS games like Age of Empires and Command and Conquer. That is how WE judge games... based on our standard of StarCraft. That's not how EVERYONE does it.
Second, you think Halo is a horrible game? Okay buddy. That's why the thought that Halo 3 being released on the same day as PS3 was such a big deal last year. I bet if you made an online poll of how many people would buy an XBox 360 just to play Halo 3, you'd see some pretty big numbers. I know StarCraft is big, but that's because it's had nearly a decade to develop. Halo hasn't been out that long and it receives nearly as much attention as StarCraft. Obviously, the two games are different genres and natures, so there's no point in comparing the two, but you need to stop thinking your opinions are facts.
I think that you just don't understand what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is that if StarCraft 2 is a success, regular StarCraft will dwindle eventually and noone will talk about it as much. If StarCraft 2 is a failure, then sure it will be compared to regular StarCraft, but then that subject will also eventually dwindle. They would be the same title, but ultimately different games.
let me just kill your post right here. i'm BIG fan of AoE series, I've played it all, from aoe1 to the newest aoe3. Best one for me was aoe2:the conq., I grew up with C&C(not red alert,but the one even before it), etc. and I simply can't compare sc:bw to aoe for example. It's billion times harder. So, it's not like we all say the game we love is the best - we're being realistic, sc:bw has been crafted into one of the finest RTS games ever, mostly thanks to the players. Just like chess, people developed it, made it so perfect.
this is great. foreigners will have a chance to be on top at sc for few years, how it used to be on the begining. 3d would be horrible imho. for 3d to be effective game needs bigger zoom which would suck.
Anyway, I expected the hostile and negative comments. Its hard to imagine how a new game (albeit a decade later with far vast techs at their hands) can improve on such a bestselling classic. However, because bw was such a hit, there will always be someone who will find something to argue about.
I don't think we have to worry about things like Heroes and upkeep and such for SC2, assuming this announcement is verified. Remember when War3 was first released? 3D cards were nowhere near as powerful as they are now. The developers knew this, and therefore created a game which revolved around lower unit counts, enforcing this with upkeep. SC2 can afford to look much better than War3 while maintaining the large unit numbers that we SC players are familiar with. Additionally, SC2 has a huge reputation to live up to, and the devs know this too. They've heard the opinions of millions of SC players, seen the proven effectiveness of SC in league play and its unprecedented staying power, and seen how SC2 could work through preliminary projects such as Project: Revolution. I think Blizzard knows it's not going to be smart to stray too far from what caused SC to be successful, so we should probably expect SC in 3D with more units and possibly more terrain interaction and more technically advanced abilities.
I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue!
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue!
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
My problem with 3d is not pacing, but unit response time, I have never seen a 3d rts with smooth unit response time. They always seem to set in motion and the do it. With 2d sprite this is immediate. Dawn of War is meant to be fast paced, yet when you give an order, it takes time for the unit to comply...
I think War3 looks brilliant and I think SC looks fine as well, so I think either way I'd be satisfied as long as the gameplay is kept tight and awesome. I think the majority of people bashing War3 would agree with that.
Anyways, War3 is partly "slow" because shit just don't die. Units have 500+ hp and most do under 50 damage. I think it was something that had to be done to balance heros and units, if you had units with too little HP, heros would be useless and could be ganked easily. If heros and units had too high HP, then heros would never die (and the game would be even more boring). Overall the concept was cool but it just doesn't make for fast paced action.
Also the controls seem sluggish I think partly because of all the fancy animation going on. In SC, you tell a marine to shoot and he shoots without any delay. In War3, however, you tell a rifleman to shoot and he has to pick up his rifle, aim, and then shoot. Archers have to pick up their bows, pull back the string, shoot, and then their arrows have to fly to the enemy. While the unit response might be instant (and actually better than in SC), the whole process of the animation and the projectile actually traveling makes it feel really slow. I think as long as they can have instant attacking and the projectiles are instant or at least very fast, the game will seem a lot faster.
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue!
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
People are worried about SC2 being in 3D is because 3D for RTS looks terrible right now, not because it has some affect on game pace. The drawn StarCraft sprites look a lot better than cubes with some ugly texture on each face as we see in Warcraft III.
3D graphics should only be applied to RTS's when technology and user systems have progressed far enough to render smooth, realistic 3D. Not the flesh colored Transformers of War3.
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue!
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
People are worried about SC2 being in 3D is because 3D for RTS looks terrible right now, not because it has some affect on game pace. The drawn StarCraft sprites look a lot better than cubes with some ugly texture on each face as we see in Warcraft III.
3D graphics should only be applied to RTS's when technology and user systems have progressed far enough to render smooth, realistic 3D. Not the flesh colored Transformers of War3.
I dont give a damn about graphics. I want my units to listen to me.
On April 26 2007 17:53 AnOth3rDAy wrote: To all you people saying "have blizzard ever made a bad game?"...
I didn't read the rest of this thread, but did people seriously say that? Of course Blizzard has made bad games. Diablo 2 was terrible. WarCraft 1 and 3 were mediocre. And then there's World of WarCraft, which is the best MMO out there, I suppose, but that's like saying that I emit the best-smelling farts in the world: they're still unpleasant.
Blizzard isn't infallible, but I'd be lying if I said that the prospect of SC2 didn't excite me.
On April 26 2007 17:53 AnOth3rDAy wrote: To all you people saying "have blizzard ever made a bad game?"...
I didn't read the rest of this thread, but did people seriously say that? Of course Blizzard has made bad games. Diablo 2 was terrible. WarCraft 1 and 3 were mediocre. And then there's World of WarCraft, which is the best MMO out there, I suppose, but that's like saying that I emit the best-smelling farts in the world: they're still unpleasant.
Blizzard isn't infallible, but I'd be lying if I said that the prospect of SC2 didn't excite me.
You have impossibly high standards for games, then. Diablo 2 wasn't awesome, but it was still a great game that happened to have the living hell abused out of it on Battle.net. Warcraft 1 was a milestone for RTS gaming, and Warcraft 3 is a pretty deep RTS in its own right.
And for those that play MMORPG's, WoW was pretty much the best yet. You might not like the genre, but it's not Blizzard's fault. And people have a lot of fun with MMORPG - who are you to say that they are all misguided? Different preferences, man. I hate MMORPG's (and especially WoW) more than you probably, but I wouldn't say that they all suck, and I definitely wouldn't say that WoW was a bad game.
What other company can you think of that has a remotely comparable track record with so many different games in so many different genres?
On April 26 2007 16:22 ggfobster wrote: I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time, and I made a name just for this post. I want to say that if your biggest concern is SC2 being 3D, then you are an IDIOT. First, you haven't even seen the game to know the pacing and second, WC3 didn't have slow pacing because of 3D. Blizzard MADE WC3 THAT WAY. They purposely slowed the game down and they can purposely speed up SC2. In WC3 there is an item called Speed scroll that makes units run/attack very fast, so the pacing has nothing to do with being in 3D. WC3 is supposed to be slow pace. Come on, get a clue!
SC2 is being made, so stfu about the 3D bull****
Btw, SC is better than WC3, but 3D in WC3 is WAAAY better than sprites. Get used to it.
My problem with 3d is not pacing, but unit response time, I have never seen a 3d rts with smooth unit response time. They always seem to set in motion and the do it. With 2d sprite this is immediate. Dawn of War is meant to be fast paced, yet when you give an order, it takes time for the unit to comply...
Thats really not an issue with 3D, but an issue with each of those specific games. Those time delays tend to be programmed in or part of the units' animations. SC just happens to lack such a delay, whether or not it uses sprites really doesn't matter. I know it seems a bit weird that every single 3D RTS released would have such a delay, but its just one of those odd coincedences (and not helped very much by the views of RTS hoi polloi who seem to think that less micro and less APM requirement means a better game).
i dont mean to be a fanboy, but blizzard has accomplished quite a bit with only a few series of games. sc caters for the harder style RTS players - it's acknowledged as the best ever RTS. wc3 caters for the RTS noobs (no offence). wow is simply the most popular and best (?) mmorpg. the diablo franchise, though i never got into it, offers a mix between MMORPGs and action games - addictive to some, innovative in a way, and offering the ever attractive multiplayer only blizzard can provide.
that being said, sc might be thoguht of as a fluke... but then you look at all the small intricicies of the game - unit attack variations vs different unit sizes, splash damage, instant command response and truly useful unit upgrades. they left so much room for the gamer to develop the game into something special. look at what boxer did with his mnm and dropships, what grrr did with his reavers, july with his mutas, etc. the first time you play mnm vs lurkers you'd think lurkers simply own mnm.. then you are forced to be sneaky, be quick, and become effective. then it seems like marines have the advantage because of their mobility. then savior comes along and makes you realise there really is such a delicate yet brilliant balance between terran and zerg. i could talk about this crap for hours, but the reality of the matter is the game is simple at a glance. simple is good, it attracts new people. before long though you're exposed to the true depths of the game, and you become one of the impressed, one of the addicted.
blizzard knows it's market very well. they know what people want from this game, yet they have also shown us that a certain degree of innovation at the right time can be very beneficial for both the gamer and the industry. i believe they will make the right choices for this game. they know gameplay is paramount for this one, they know the expectations, they know us. "just do it", blizzard!!!
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
i will play BW as long as it makes fun and i achieve some things... as soon as sc2 comes (if it comes) im sure i will test it.. due to me being addicted to this first genial game.. lets see
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
Units in SC also don't turn instantly Most units turn around 30-40 degree per frame, so for a 180 degree turn they need 4-5 frames(0.16 - 0.2 seconds on fastest game speed), so it's not because of the animation, but because of the intended the game pace
On April 26 2007 17:44 ofclean wrote: what's the framerate of starcraft 1? isn't it 24fps?
It's 24.8 per second on fastest game speed and 15 on normal.
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
Units in SC also don't turn instantly Most units turn around 30-40 degree per frame, so for a 180 degree turn they need 4-5 frames(0.16 - 0.2 seconds on fastest game speed), so it's not because of the animation, but because of the intended the game pace
Comparatively with other 3D RTS, BW's response is practically instant
We'll agree that an action for 3D games have a lot more frames hence a more delayed response. Perhaps game developer doesn't get enough complaint on the unit control to warrant any fixing. Most casual gamers are more focus on the supposed "strategy" than the unit control to notice their units are responding a few millisecond late.
you can in fact change these figures like turning speed in custom editors, even for w3. i mean there are custom maps for w3 out there that make certain units turn instantly.
this is not really a 3-d or whatnot issue but something that can be changed if enough people complain about it, or tehy find it is no good to gameplay during testing
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
It's like the tectonic plates of Blizzard moved just a little bit and now the simple villagers of the island nation of TeamLiquid are drowning in a nerd tsunami or something.
On April 26 2007 19:28 Sadist wrote: i cant believe someone said D2 was a bad game
;(
d2 was fun and simple, how was it bad?
When people think their opinion is "fact" . Blizzard never release a bad game. Their products get rave reviews and sell tons.
3D doesn't make units slow. The unit speed is set by the developers to probably make it is more realistic in scale. Tanks don't go 100 mph in real life.
The response time is due to the animation. Units going 180 in 2D is instant while in 3D, it has the 'turn around animation' to make the transition look smooth.
Starcraft didn't get rave reviews.
It was a little underrated at the time compared to how well it's considered now, but it got pretty good reviews on release nonetheless.
YES! finally all the people with crappy computers and 56k modems can't play cause they cant afford a decent computer. No more lag! Horray!
Also to all the idiots that think they need to spend $2000 for a computer...truly morons. You can build a VERY HIGH end comp for around the $1000 makrs. Thats with like a intel e6600, and the best video card available 8800GTX 768mb video card now. cpu= $230, video card = 600$ hard drive 50$, mobo 100$, ram 100$ there you have best comp for less than 1200$. If you are cheap build a 500$ comp..with a 200$video card and cheaper cpu. dual cores as cheap as 80$.
Also to the other idiotic group of people that crys "boohoo its going to be crappy 3d like w3 engine and units will be slow and big in my face", wth would they use a old ass engine to make a new game...please think before you speak. Also theres a difference between 3D GRAPHICS and PERSPECTIVE. Just cause a game is 3D, doesnt mean its going to be like some sort of first person shooter view or a rotated view...They can DESIGN the perspective to whatever they like, even a top down look..They can also design the physics, the way units move, the speed, everything dumbasses. Do you expect a game in 2007 to be in f***ing 2D? go live in a cave if you do.
Some guy mentioned "they gonna use w3 engine cause its the best one available for rts now"...WOW more stupidity. Have you seen command and conquer 3? Conclusion: You too dumb to play starcraft 2. THE END
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: YES! finally all the people with crappy computers and 56k modems can't play cause they cant afford a decent computer. No more lag! Horray!
Also to all the idiots that think they need to spend $2000 for a computer...truly morons. You can build a VERY HIGH end comp for around the $1000 makrs. Thats with like a intel e6600, and the best video card available 8800GTX 768mb video card now. cpu= $230, video card = 600$ hard drive 50$, mobo 100$, ram 100$ there you have best comp for less than 1200$. If you are cheap build a 500$ comp..with a 200$video card and cheaper cpu. dual cores as cheap as 80$.
Also to the other idiotic group of people that crys "boohoo its going to be crappy 3d like w3 engine and units will be slow and big in my face", wth would they use a old ass engine to make a new game...please think before you speak. Also theres a difference between 3D GRAPHICS and PERSPECTIVE. Just cause a game is 3D, doesnt mean its going to be like some sort of first person shooter view or a rotated view...They can DESIGN the perspective to whatever they like, even a top down look..They can also design the physics, the way units move, the speed, everything dumbasses. Do you expect a game in 2007 to be in f***ing 2D? go live in a cave if you do.
Some guy mentioned "they gonna use w3 engine cause its the best one available for rts now"...WOW more stupidity. Have you seen command and conquer 3? Conclusion: You too dumb to play starcraft 2. THE END
I think that tl.net is not a good forum for you, you know? gg.net may be better for you.. go there and you'll find people with the same opinions like you..
On May 02 2007 08:55 niteReloaded wrote: 3D means one aditional dimension.
In my book, that means a potentially very interesting gameplay. it doesnt mean the game will slow down, they just need to do it right.
Every 3D RTS to date has failed professionally (one could argue that CnC3 is doing ok, but the complete lack of micro is it's downfall). I have faith in Blizzard however, and KNOW that they can pull this off.
They can pull off something great for sure. The fucking nuance almost nobody here seems to understand is that it's almost impossible they pull something AS good, considering the nowadays constraints.
How many guys will come saying the same "they always released great games" bullshit. WTF ? Thats true but thats not the question. They will probably kill the genious game to put something good instead, weeeeee. As for renewing the community, whats the point if its for a poor or less good game ?
Now if you are happy with something decent because it changes, go for it, like millions did with W3. Thats stupid but i assume thats the way most of the kids see the things nowadays. But dont come here trying to convert people before we actually see the game.
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: YES! finally all the people with crappy computers and 56k modems can't play cause they cant afford a decent computer. No more lag! Horray!
Also to all the idiots that think they need to spend $2000 for a computer...truly morons. You can build a VERY HIGH end comp for around the $1000 makrs. Thats with like a intel e6600, and the best video card available 8800GTX 768mb video card now. cpu= $230, video card = 600$ hard drive 50$, mobo 100$, ram 100$ there you have best comp for less than 1200$. If you are cheap build a 500$ comp..with a 200$video card and cheaper cpu. dual cores as cheap as 80$.
Also to the other idiotic group of people that crys "boohoo its going to be crappy 3d like w3 engine and units will be slow and big in my face", wth would they use a old ass engine to make a new game...please think before you speak. Also theres a difference between 3D GRAPHICS and PERSPECTIVE. Just cause a game is 3D, doesnt mean its going to be like some sort of first person shooter view or a rotated view...They can DESIGN the perspective to whatever they like, even a top down look..They can also design the physics, the way units move, the speed, everything dumbasses. Do you expect a game in 2007 to be in f***ing 2D? go live in a cave if you do.
Some guy mentioned "they gonna use w3 engine cause its the best one available for rts now"...WOW more stupidity. Have you seen command and conquer 3? Conclusion: You too dumb to play starcraft 2. THE END
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: YES! finally all the people with crappy computers and 56k modems can't play cause they cant afford a decent computer. No more lag! Horray!
actually there will still be tons of people who are short of meeting the requirements, so you're way off.. raising the system requirements wont mean no more lag, in fact there will probably be more as in general the higher the requirements the more # of people who can barely run the game + cause lag
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: Also to the other idiotic group of people that crys "boohoo its going to be crappy 3d like w3 engine and units will be slow and big in my face", wth would they use a old ass engine to make a new game...please think before you speak.
more idiotic crap from the true idiot himself. "The game will be 3D because it has to be" is not a response to the concern that 3D RTS games are slower in terms of unit responsiveness. That is still a valid concern and your statement doesn't address it, maybe YOU should "think more being speaking."
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: Also theres a difference between 3D GRAPHICS and PERSPECTIVE. Just cause a game is 3D, doesnt mean its going to be like some sort of first person shooter view or a rotated view...They can DESIGN the perspective to whatever they like, even a top down look..They can also design the physics, the way units move, the speed, everything dumbasses. Do you expect a game in 2007 to be in f***ing 2D? go live in a cave if you do.
I love the 'also' as if you already made one valid response, which is followed by something equally retarded. Why the hell are you talking about perspective/views? k nobody gives a shit, did you honestly believe we thought a 3D RTS means a FPS view? Oh and really they can design the physics, the way everything moves, and the speed huh? So did they intentionally make the units clunky and slow-responding in WC3 or are you saying NOW you know they can do it, they were unable to before? we all hope you are right but why are you so sure and act like we're stupid for being worried they may not be able to? Oh and you bring up once again the 'durr it has to be 3D you idiots' as your closing point, good one there.
On May 02 2007 07:41 FLW-Shinobi wrote: Conclusion: You too dumb to play starcraft 2. THE END
go back to lurking, your first post was in this thread, you should have your last post be in this one too
On May 02 2007 11:44 Raist wrote: more idiotic crap from the true idiot himself. "The game will be 3D because it has to be" is not a response to the concern that 3D RTS games are slower in terms of unit responsiveness. That is still a valid concern and your statement doesn't address it, maybe YOU should "think more being speaking."
what in hell are you talking about? " to the concern that 3d rts games are slower?" lol There always going to be some poor ass that dont have a decent comp to run any game, even a 10 year old game like starcraft. I dont think blizzard or anyone would give a crap about meeting "the demands of 2D enthusiasts". So yes IT HAS TO BE 3D dumbass. Its so obvious blizzard will try to make the requirement as low as possible without sacrificing quality of a 3D game and potential customers. Times change, if your comp cant even meet the mininum requirement (which is sad), thats too bad. If you are that poor to afford a decent comp, you dont deserve to be sitting around playing games. Go get a job
On May 02 2007 11:44 Raist wrote: Why the hell are you talking about perspective/views? k nobody gives a shit, did you honestly believe we thought a 3D RTS means a FPS view? Oh and really they can design the physics, the way everything moves, and the speed huh? So did they intentionally make the units clunky and slow-responding in WC3 or are you saying NOW you know they can do it, they were unable to before? we all hope you are right but why are you so sure and act like we're stupid for being worried they may not be able to? Oh and you bring up once again the 'durr it has to be 3D you idiots' as your closing point, good one there.
Yes there are many idiots that are unable to distinquish between 3D and Perspectives...As for units being slow, its 2 possible cause: They designed the game that way or your computer sucks ass, especially for blizzard games whos requirement arent that high. Thats the end of it.
On May 02 2007 11:44 Raist wrote: more idiotic crap from the true idiot himself. "The game will be 3D because it has to be" is not a response to the concern that 3D RTS games are slower in terms of unit responsiveness. That is still a valid concern and your statement doesn't address it, maybe YOU should "think more being speaking."
what in hell are you talking about? " to the concern that 3d rts games are slower?" lol There always going to be some poor ass that dont have a decent comp to run any game, even a 10 year old game like starcraft. I dont think blizzard or anyone would give a crap about meeting "the demands of 2D enthusiasts". So yes IT HAS TO BE 3D dumbass. Its so obvious blizzard will try to make the requirement as low as possible without sacrificing quality of a 3D game and potential customers. Times change, if your comp cant even meet the mininum requirement (which is sad), thats too bad. If you are that poor to afford a decent comp, you dont deserve to be sitting around playing games. Go get a job
what the christ? wow you just don't get it. What I said had absolutely nothing to do w/ how fast computers can run it. Starcraft units respond very quickly and well, units in newer 3D RTS games all respond slower, and that has nothing to do w/ anyone's computer specs, it's the way the game is itself. The fact that i have to explain this to you when several people already posted about this earlier in the thread and you obviously did not understand any of them. What's sad is that even though you obviously had no idea what I was referring to, you still managed to think was talking about something related to system requirements? learn to read please, if you did then you should have realized you're missing something here
On May 02 2007 11:44 Raist wrote: Why the hell are you talking about perspective/views? k nobody gives a shit, did you honestly believe we thought a 3D RTS means a FPS view? Oh and really they can design the physics, the way everything moves, and the speed huh? So did they intentionally make the units clunky and slow-responding in WC3 or are you saying NOW you know they can do it, they were unable to before? we all hope you are right but why are you so sure and act like we're stupid for being worried they may not be able to? Oh and you bring up once again the 'durr it has to be 3D you idiots' as your closing point, good one there.
Yes there are many idiots that are unable to distinquish between 3D and Perspectives...As for units being slow, its 2 possible cause: They designed the game that way or your computer sucks ass, especially for blizzard games whos requirement arent that high. Thats the end of it.
once again talking about requirements, just shutup about shit you have no idea what you're talking about, you are obviously clueless
i dont see what is in 3-d graphics that makes the unit response slower. it may be that the demand for slower unit responses occurs concurrently wtih a demand for 3-d graphics and the gamemakers respond to the two demands separately.
On May 02 2007 13:19 Raist wrote: units in newer 3D RTS games all respond slower, and that has nothing to do w/ anyone's computer specs, it's the way the game is itself
WOW you truly are idiotic. units in newer 3D RTS "ALL"responder slower? just wow..Do you not have enough brain cells to realize that how units respond is base on how they are programmed? They don't ALL have to respond slow OK? Like ive said before, developers can do anything they want to. If they are programmed to move fast then it will be fast. The only thing that can get in the way is obviously if you have a slow ass computer which overall will give a laggy feeling.
"However, trustworthy information is being leaked from previous Blizzard employees, and through an acquaintance of ex-Blizzard North employees, StarCraft 2's development and its announcement at the WWI has been confirmed"
this means its not reliable. we'll see on the 19th and everyone really needs to shut up until then
On May 02 2007 21:26 evanthebouncy~ wrote: I personally want mini 3D planets as one of the map options, you can rotate them around like google earth n stuff :D
Yeah, and this would be the targeting system for Terran Nukes =)
Shinobi or whoever you are (does you nickname even matter?). Try to realize the difference between a fixed-framerate engine (one global timed while loop, therefore response time <= 1 frame time ~ 40-50 ms) and variable framerate engine (global while loop is NOT timed). 3D RTS'es can be and (as of current) are indeed slower on unit responses.
But, I sincerely believe Blizzard can do some fancy trick to avoid that.
I think all the bitching coming from players that are dismissing the game already should shut the hell up. I mean honestly, I garuntee you guys just dont want to wait for the game to balance, learn new strategies,and redevelop those strategies. Just players that got spoiled and are too lazy to learn a new game since this one took so long to get good at. And for most of the gosus saying this, its b.c YOU know that you and everyone have to learn the game AGAIN and the fact is that we all will be noobs (to some extent depending how much alike BW and SC2 will be) and you are afraid of not being able to get back to the skill that you have in BW.
As for the game, I just hope to really continue the story. Seeing how the rest of it plays out etc. The gameplay will change depending on the unit sizes, camera angles and distance from units (or unit sizes w.e.), speed, and additional units, races. I just hope, since they are remodeling everything, that it stays true to the cinematics, and they dont downgrade OR recreate the models like they did in SC:Ghost.. i mean look at the zerglings in the cinematic movies for SC and BW and then look at Ghost. Two completely different concepts. I just hope to see some sort of repitition and not any sort of graphics and gameplay downgrading.
havent saw these on TL and i thought this is the most appropriate post to put them in ... Fan Art Gallery by the guy that won the Blizzard's Art Contest for Best 3D Environment of SC: http://polyphobia.de/nonpublic/muddles/blizz/
I don't see how you guys can't be excited for this game:
A 3D Starcraft 2 will be developed with E-Sports in mind. Blizzard is going to make this game a spectacle to play and watch. The perspective will NOT be a problem, they will most likely take the original SC perspective and move it to 3D. The game speed will be fine as long as they don't implement acceleration, which is a problem all the new RTS games are running in to - with acceleration, micro becomes much less useful and games turns into macrofests. Blizzard isn't going to make this mistake. Remember, folks, this is a company that makes a quarter of a BILLION dollars a month off of WoW subscriptions (before taxes, obviously). They have money to get the best talent to make this game and lead the project, if anyone pays attention to quality more than any company, it would be Blizzard. This is the same company that canned Starcraft: Ghost, after pouring millions into it. They will not release a crappy product (WC3 was not a bad game, just not the SC killer like it was touted to be). SC2 will be great.
On May 12 2007 09:26 Phlash wrote: The game speed will be fine as long as they don't implement acceleration, which is a problem all the new RTS games are running in to - with acceleration, micro becomes much less useful and games turns into macrofests. Blizzard isn't going to make this mistake.
Too bad there IS acceleration in Starcraft It's quite evident with shuttles/dropships.
On May 12 2007 08:53 Manaldski wrote: havent saw these on TL and i thought this is the most appropriate post to put them in ... Fan Art Gallery by the guy that won the Blizzard's Art Contest for Best 3D Environment of SC: http://polyphobia.de/nonpublic/muddles/blizz/
that zergling looked really awesome but that zealot kind of looked like a raisin
On May 12 2007 09:26 Phlash wrote: The game speed will be fine as long as they don't implement acceleration, which is a problem all the new RTS games are running in to - with acceleration, micro becomes much less useful and games turns into macrofests. Blizzard isn't going to make this mistake.
Too bad there IS acceleration in Starcraft It's quite evident with shuttles/dropships.
and scvs, probes, drones, and every other flying unit in the game
I don't think we need to worry too much. Seeing how SC became a "pro-sport" in Korea, Blizzard is most likely to build upon SC:BW and there won't be any drastic rehaul (i.e: same pace, same units, etc...)
There's probably going be some addition (i.e: 2 new units) but I doubt that would be the main attraction.
If anything, I have a feeling that they will use the 3D engine to their advantage and try to improve how the units interact with the environment (so having the possibility of having complexe maps). ...at least, that's what I think is going to happen.
Eitherway: -SC2 is most likely to be e-sports friendly -SC2 is going to revive the Starcraft series -The core of SC:BW will remain intact in SC2 (i.e: pace, units, no heroes, etc...)
EPT
). So things will change it's meant to happen, if you don't play it younger gamers will it's the comming of a new era, even if it isn't our own. :p
![[image loading]](http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1570/vlcsnap2690911js7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://news.dreamwiz.com/origin/20060420/xportsnews/DSC_0608.jpg)
