On June 15 2007 04:25 IncogniToss wrote: Hello, i'm new to TL so i can't Post new topic then i just add right here a vid that not seems to be shown anywhere on tl forums
Ignore the rude responses, it's good you try to contribute and a good shot at making a worthwile entrance to the boards. Not every shot hits so shame but good try hehe.
On June 14 2007 22:24 L!MP wrote: sadly, the many of the new units we've been shown appear to be direct rip offs: collosus (War of the worlds) soul hunter (warhammer 40k) immortals (starwars) tempest (Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda) reapers (warhammer 40k)
You big baby, as pointed out by Zelniq the whole sci fi genre is one big clusterfuck of people using other peoples ideas. We do pull from the same "pop-culture soup" you know....
Now, if you get into beta and the AI, UI, etc. sucks THEN you can complain, but until then get a clue and stop whining so damn much about such trivial things.
What the fuck. Why do people bitch and moan about others complaining about a games atmosphere? Kill yourself.
It's perfectly legit to complain about units/abilities that just don't feel like Starcraft. Sure all of fantasy/sci-fi is just stealing everyone elses ideas, but Starcraft had it's own feel to it. Guys with double pistols, stealing souls, firing bright flashy lasers, etc, just does not fit many people's perception of the Starcraft universe. It doesn't matter if it was someone else's idea or not, it just needs to fit with the rest of the game world.
OMG some people need to shut the fuck up. Everything in the game looks VERY promising despite hawing some flaws.
Yes the graphics are a tiny bit cartoony (a _TINY BIT_) but its the beta they have time to adjust it. Yes some of the unit names sound cheesy (Soul Hunter) but its the beta they have time to change the names. Bla bla bla... SC1 underwent a series of evolutions untill being released as the game we know today. Many things ware different in the beta's and later changed.
And are you people forgetting that this game is being made by THE Blizzard? You know Blizzard Entertainment? You might have heard of them, they made games like STARCRAFT and DIABLO. Just sit back, relax and wait for more information on the development of the game and pass judgement when you see the final product, which wont be for awhile.
I have a bad feeling about the new Carrier not having any air defence. Will that mean no shields vs. air or will it be unable to attack air units? Im sure it will work in the grand scheme of things but sounds a bit wrong at this point.
On June 14 2007 22:24 L!MP wrote: sadly, the many of the new units we've been shown appear to be direct rip offs: collosus (War of the worlds) soul hunter (warhammer 40k) immortals (starwars) tempest (Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda) reapers (warhammer 40k)
You big baby, as pointed out by Zelniq the whole sci fi genre is one big clusterfuck of people using other peoples ideas. We do pull from the same "pop-culture soup" you know....
Now, if you get into beta and the AI, UI, etc. sucks THEN you can complain, but until then get a clue and stop whining so damn much about such trivial things.
What the fuck. Why do people bitch and moan about others complaining about a games atmosphere? Kill yourself.
It's perfectly legit to complain about units/abilities that just don't feel like Starcraft. Sure all of fantasy/sci-fi is just stealing everyone elses ideas, but Starcraft had it's own feel to it. Guys with double pistols, stealing souls, firing bright flashy lasers, etc, just does not fit many people's perception of the Starcraft universe. It doesn't matter if it was someone else's idea or not, it just needs to fit with the rest of the game world.
LOL, HEY GUESS WHAT?????
YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THE GAME OR SEEN ALL THE UNITS.
On June 15 2007 13:51 uvaer wrote: sc2 is going to be the same outcome as counterstrike source..
its going to be fun playing pub games, competitively its going to suck
bw4life :D
but hey, i could be completely wrong..just seems thats the way its going to go down
Because the graphics are too bright? =[ Blizzard already said numerous times one of the things they're aiming for when building starcraft 2, is the fact that it should be playable on high competitive levels, and that they're tailoring the content towards hardcore players, rather than the more casual ones, and working to make some things more casualfriendly later on! I think that in itself is promising enough, don't you? :>
On June 15 2007 03:32 Doctorasul wrote: What are the exact stages and sub-stages the game has to go through and what do they mean? How do you know when a game has "entered" alpha, internal alpha or beta?
It's very vague, but generally "pre-alpha" stage means that the software still lacks some of the planned core features, "alpha" is a mostly feature-complete version which is undergoing test inside the company, but it can lack certain content such as levels/campaigns, and "beta" is a complete version of software which is released for testing outside the company. There is no such thing as "internal alpha", since "alpha version" by itself means that the software is not yet released to anyone outside the company.
On June 15 2007 13:51 uvaer wrote: sc2 is going to be the same outcome as counterstrike source..
its going to be fun playing pub games, competitively its going to suck
bw4life :D
but hey, i could be completely wrong..just seems thats the way its going to go down
Because the graphics are too bright? =[ Blizzard already said numerous times one of the things they're aiming for when building starcraft 2, is the fact that it should be playable on high competitive levels, and that they're tailoring the content towards hardcore players, rather than the more casual ones, and working to make some things more casualfriendly later on! I think that in itself is promising enough, don't you? :>
That being said I dislike the soul hunters.
well you caint tailor the content towards hardcore players more than it is in sc, ppl run away to wc3 from sc simply because they are, I quote, Lazy. sc is perfection, dont expect blizzard to make sc perfection 3D version, we'll get a new game and by the looks of it it will have nothing similiar to bw, not even the unit names -carrier>tempest, and so on, makes you feel like watching a cheap movie instead of playing a masterpiece rts-
On June 15 2007 13:51 uvaer wrote: sc2 is going to be the same outcome as counterstrike source..
its going to be fun playing pub games, competitively its going to suck
bw4life :D
but hey, i could be completely wrong..just seems thats the way its going to go down
Because the graphics are too bright? =[ Blizzard already said numerous times one of the things they're aiming for when building starcraft 2, is the fact that it should be playable on high competitive levels, and that they're tailoring the content towards hardcore players, rather than the more casual ones, and working to make some things more casualfriendly later on! I think that in itself is promising enough, don't you? :>
That being said I dislike the soul hunters.
well you caint tailor the content towards hardcore players more than it is in sc, ppl run away to wc3 from sc simply because they are, I quote, Lazy. sc is perfection, dont expect blizzard to make sc perfection 3D version, we'll get a new game and by the looks of it it will have nothing similiar to bw, not even the unit names -carrier>tempest, and so on, makes you feel like watching a cheap movie instead of playing a masterpiece rts-
I hope the quote will turn out right :> I don't think people 'ran away' to warcraft 3. I think the people that played/play w3 are the people that either got bored of broodwar, or never played it at all, seeing it's a pretty old game and it was a pretty old game back then as well.
And, yes, we will get a new game! That's why it's called starcraft 2 and not starcraft special edition :> But will that neccesarily mean it's bad? What exactly are they changing? Blizzard added new units with brood war as well, and it *did* impact the gameplay of classic SC alot; a larger emphasis on detectors comes to mind. But look how that turned out! :> We're still playing it 7 years later.
Personally I must say I don't agree with all the choices Blizzard has made so far, but dismissing a game based on things like renamed units is kind of tunnelvisioned if you ask me. Basically, most things we've seen so far are aestethics (big lazerbeams, the blueish colorscheme) and apart from some possible gameplay interrupting things like lasers clogging up the screen I've seen nothing that would indicate on the game being unplayable, except for the dubious soul hunters which in my opinion are a clear-cut case of bad concept 'just because it's cool'. But that's what this is beta for =) pointing out shit like that and hopefully getting it fixed.
Apart from that, we have Blizzard's promise they'll keep the starcraft feel intact, and apart from some aestethics like the obvious 3d (which takes like, 3 games to get used to?) I see no reason why this game shouldn't play just as smooth as bw does. Even if they rename every unit to 'walkman' 'shootman' 'explosionman' etc.
^^ excactly my point!!! People should'nt judge a game by looking at the unit names.. Just as long as it's playable, competitive, and it's balanced.. Peace.
On June 14 2007 03:53 rS]taCat wrote: Whoa, the pre-alpha stage looks slightly similar to Warcraft 3?
Guess what. The pre-alpha stage of Starcraft one looked EXACTLY THE FREAKIN' SAME to Warcraft 2.
QFT
Don't judge a damn game based on the early stages of its development. SC2 will rock. Don't deny it, unless you want it to flop yourself, and if you do, you are a sick twisted bastard.
simple PR move - u give to fans a little bit ugly pre-alfa and then every month u add something u've decided about a year ago, so every fan would be like ohh well that's what i've been thinking about, blizzard rocks!!!!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/1986/a49cf.jpg)
