|
On April 28 2009 12:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 11:04 Skeptic wrote:On April 28 2009 10:56 geno wrote:
Some of the benefits of this change: First - it will make the Colossus a very unique unit: you see those spider walkers things with laser beams in all kinds of sci-fi works.. but how many have bomb attacks like that! Second, it just seems like a more natural evolution from the reaver this way - from a lore standpoint it makes a lot of sense that some of the reaver's downsides were reengineered, and after some tradeoffs, the Colossus was born. Third, it makes the other laser using mobs (warp ray and nullifier I think?) more unique units. Finally, there are a number of interesting changes they could do with mechanics this way if they wanted to: delayed explosions, quick fire explosions, different explosion patterns, etc.
I feel its a total shame this concept was not given more discussion. Once again, all credit to InRaged for the GIFs from that thread. In order for this to work out lore-wise, they would have to contradict what they've already released on the collussus. What they have said makes sense with the movie they were apparantly based on: war of the worlds in that the collosi were near ancient technology hidden on planets for later use, but, like the mothership, has been recalled in times of great need for the protoss. It's old, to say the least. Well, its old, but by no means it was kept hidden in planets for later use, the protoss used these killing machines in the aeon of strife, and after seeing millions of their bretheren killed by it, they banned it because it was "too effective", here is a historical refence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow (see for legal issues)
I looked up the unit profile on 'Starcraft2.com' and this is what I got:
'At the time, the Conclave outlawed the manufacture of colossi, and existing machines were deactivated before being sealed away in distant asteroids and uninhabited moons. Centuries later the war against the zerg has brought forth these engines of destruction to do battle once more.'
at the link http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/colossus.xml
asteroids+moons, meh.
|
Rename it Warcraft IV, because that's what it looks and appears to feel like.
|
On April 29 2009 06:24 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:56 geno wrote:
- Switch the attack animation for roach and hydra. That green acidy spray totally belongs to hydra! Spikes I think would look great for roach anyways. Not a fan. If you've read the lore behind the hydralisk, you'll notice it shoots spines, not goo. I'd much rather the animations stayed as they are.
Well, I'm not big into lore, but did they have picture of the spines? Did they look green and acidy like they were in the game?
I'm just sayin' is all.
|
Theoretically they're too fast to see, but yeah, they definitely shoot spines, not acid. Ever wondered why the upgrade says something about spines? (I don't play zerg >_>)
|
I wish their were less terran animations, it seems like every unit and building has some kind special lift off procedure or jump pack or something, what ever happened to just move
|
On April 29 2009 13:41 cz wrote:
Rename it Warcraft IV, because that's what it looks and appears to feel like.
It does not look anything like warcraft. There are more than enough distinct, if not obvious differences that are near impossible to miss unless you like to troll.
I don't know how you know what the game feels like seeing as you haven't played it yet.
|
On April 29 2009 04:12 garmule2 wrote:
Where I go to school they'd refer to Blizzard's thinking these days as 'wealth preservation' as opposed to 'value creation'. The imagination, creativity, and positive contribution to human thought is gone, replaced by money-grubbers.
Ya know, not that I completely disagree with this sentiment, I agree with it to a point to be honest, but Blizzard has never been a very original game developer. Their strength, and a big reason for their success, has always been to look at their industry, to look at and analyze other games in the marketplace, both their own games and those of others and consistently be able to identify reasons for the success and failure of other games. And even within that framework to identify specific aspects of other games that are good and others that are bad.
To say this another way, Blizzard has always been good at constructing high quality games by taking a little bit from game A a little from game B, a dash from game C and so on and so forth and intelligently combining them to make one high quality product. There is very little in any of their games that hasn't been pulled, either blatantly or more subtly, from some other game in the marketplace. This is not a "bad" thing, its just that they've never at any point been particularly original.
|
On April 30 2009 09:23 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2009 04:12 garmule2 wrote:
Where I go to school they'd refer to Blizzard's thinking these days as 'wealth preservation' as opposed to 'value creation'. The imagination, creativity, and positive contribution to human thought is gone, replaced by money-grubbers. Ya know, not that I completely disagree with this sentiment, I agree with it to a point to be honest, but Blizzard has never been a very original game developer. Their strength, and a big reason for their success, has always been to look at their industry, to look at and analyze other games in the marketplace, both their own games and those of others and consistently be able to identify reasons for the success and failure of other games. And even within that framework to identify specific aspects of other games that are good and others that are bad. To say this another way, Blizzard has always been good at constructing high quality games by taking a little bit from game A a little from game B, a dash from game C and so on and so forth and intelligently combining them to make one high quality product. There is very little in any of their games that hasn't been pulled, either blatantly or more subtly, from some other game in the marketplace. This is not a "bad" thing, its just that they've never at any point been particularly original.
exactly. I don't mind playing something that's been done before if it's really good.
|
On April 29 2009 18:38 nataziel wrote:
Theoretically they're too fast to see, but yeah, they definitely shoot spines, not acid. Ever wondered why the upgrade says something about spines? (I don't play zerg >_>)
I'm well aware of the wording of the upgrade. But I think how it actually looked in the game is infinitely more important. They can call it a "spine" attack in SC2 as well for all I care, as long as it looks like the green acidy attack I've come to know and love.
|
Don't like the roach's name. All the zerg units in BW had either consistent made up names (*lisks) or something that described what they did (though it was a stretch sometimes). None of them were named after terrestrial bugs, particularly bugs I hate and whose name sounds awful. I don't really want to use roaches 
|
On May 01 2009 07:14 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Don't like the roach's name. All the zerg units in BW had either consistent made up names (*lisks) or something that described what they did (though it was a stretch sometimes). None of them were named after terrestrial bugs, particularly bugs I hate and whose name sounds awful. I don't really want to use roaches
Zerg are disgusting mutations, they're not supposed to sound nice and clean ^.^
|
I'm sure this has already been brought up before, but zergling movement really needs to be fixed. In BR2, they looked ridiculous. They all turn as if they pivot on the tip of the their long tail and they swing to the side as if on a hinge. And when they move all together it looks even worse.
I don't know what is up with this because I just went back and looked at the very first SC2 video released and the lings moved very nicely as a swarm rather than as silly synchronized dancers (moving limbs together at the same time and keeping a perfect formation).
To show that I am not just a negative person, here is something I LOVED from BR2. The hatchery looked simply amazing. Probably my biggest complaint when I first saw the zerg was that the hatcheries/lairs/hives just looked really bad. But now they blend in very nicely with the creep and the tentacles/webbing is amazing. Also the animation of the mutating buildings is sick! In soooo many ways the Zerg look beautiful. Only in the current movement of the lings am I disappointed.
EDIT: To illustrate the difference between the bad model for the old hatchery and the cool new one, look that the difference in look between the hatchery and the spawning pool in BR2. The hatchery looks cool but the spawning pool still looks like a toy that was dropped on to the creep but isn't actually attached to it. I am sure this is just because they haven't gotten around to changing the pool yet, but the hatchery makes me so happy to know that they are planning on fixing ALL the Zerg buildings.
|
make the zealot attack kinda stream better.
unlike sc1, with its 1234 1234 1234 attacks, make it 1234567890 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 28 2009 10:56 geno wrote:Inside look lol? That whole thing is just a big rant with no sources (save for the joystiq interview which was not related to his point). He has no source for the $60/game price point. No source for Activision's role in the trilogy decision. Its would be a stretch to call it an editorial much less an article; its no better than any other random negative knee-jerk reaction forum post. The whole thing is based on uninformed speculation to reach a forgone conclusion that makes an easy scapegoat out of endlessly criticized Activision for what ultimately is a non-issue . Anyways this is the wrong place for this, I don't know why I wrote this lol. Anyways, my minor complaints/suggestions! - Switch the attack animation for roach and hydra. That green acidy spray totally belongs to hydra! Spikes I think would look great for roach anyways. - Rename the roach. Give it something unique! Come on, bread and butter attack units deserve zerg lore/theme based names - zergling, hydralisk, mutalisk, ultralisk. I can see Roach for maybe a caster or specialty unit, but if its going to play as big a role as it seems, give it a lore name with a nice -lisk or -ling. - I think the Colosus can use a new attack animation. There was a thread on this a couple months back, but there was some lack of interest I guess. These concept images from the second page (all credit to InRaged) were exactly what I had in mind. It doesn't have to be exactly like any of these (my favorite is the second), just something in the general theme I think would work really well. Keep in mind it would only be an animation change if they wanted, the mechanics could remain the same. Some of the benefits of this change: First - it will make the Colossus a very unique unit: you see those spider walkers things with laser beams in all kinds of sci-fi works.. but how many have bomb attacks like that! Second, it just seems like a more natural evolution from the reaver this way - from a lore standpoint it makes a lot of sense that some of the reaver's downsides were reengineered, and after some tradeoffs, the Colossus was born. Third, it makes the other laser using mobs (warp ray and nullifier I think?) more unique units. Finally, there are a number of interesting changes they could do with mechanics this way if they wanted to: delayed explosions, quick fire explosions, different explosion patterns, etc. I feel its a total shame this concept was not given more discussion. Once again, all credit to InRaged for the GIFs from that thread.
OMFG I have been imagining something like this for months. Blizzard should definitely consider this.
|
On April 29 2009 18:38 nataziel wrote:
Theoretically they're too fast to see, but yeah, they definitely shoot spines, not acid. Ever wondered why the upgrade says something about spines? (I don't play zerg >_>)
Both of you guys are right, really. The spines are the real projectiles, but the green goo is the gunpowder. In either case the lack of SPLOIT in SC2 feels like fail to me.
|
On May 01 2009 11:16 Savio wrote:
I'm sure this has already been brought up before, but zergling movement really needs to be fixed
Lings moved that way since the very beginning, check the cinematics of the original Starcraft and of Broodwar campaign. It's sort of like their distinct movement pattern; personally I like it, but if I will see that on any other unit it would look bad beyond words, Warcrap Cartoons all over again.
|
On second thought, I hate everything. It should be starcraft 1 with better graphics. Actually, no, because the graphics are so like that one game that everyone dislikes. Maybe try making it look moar 2d and less modern. Yeah, go for the 'this looks like shit' look. If you really must make a new game I guess you should at least have all the old animations too, anything new is bad. You know what, fuck it, I actually think they should quit because they just want my money, which for some reason comes as a great surprise to me.
I feel like joining the military and throwing a fake puppy off a cliff atm...
|
On May 02 2009 07:55 Skeptic wrote:
On second thought, I hate everything. It should be starcraft 1 with better graphics. Actually, no, because the graphics are so like that one game that everyone dislikes. Maybe try making it look moar 2d and less modern. Yeah, go for the 'this looks like shit' look. If you really must make a new game I guess you should at least have all the old animations too, anything new is bad. You know what, fuck it, I actually think they should quit because they just want my money, which for some reason comes as a great surprise to me.
I feel like joining the military and throwing a fake puppy off a cliff atm...
Get out of this thread.
...or get banned for few days for making dumb posts. We'll see what FA decides...
|
On May 03 2009 07:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2009 07:55 Skeptic wrote:
On second thought, I hate everything. It should be starcraft 1 with better graphics. Actually, no, because the graphics are so like that one game that everyone dislikes. Maybe try making it look moar 2d and less modern. Yeah, go for the 'this looks like shit' look. If you really must make a new game I guess you should at least have all the old animations too, anything new is bad. You know what, fuck it, I actually think they should quit because they just want my money, which for some reason comes as a great surprise to me.
I feel like joining the military and throwing a fake puppy off a cliff atm... Get out of this thread. ...or get banned for few days for making dumb posts. We'll see what FA decides...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Everything in that post has got a purpose if you care to look for it.
|
I just find the whole 3d design makes the available space less available. You just won't see the same amount of building macro in sc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9507/acidr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8334/bombjk2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8389/bomb3np9.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/847/wobombshn4.gif)
