http://video.naver.com/2008031218592955843 The naver video is not new I don't think, since it has a pretty old release date (from the zerg announcement I think), but I haven't seen it
StarCraft II was playable this past Friday and Saturday at ESL Finals 2009 for the Alpine region in Vienna, Austria. It was most likely the same build as from BlizzCon 2008. One of StarCraft Legacy's members, FoxSpirit, had the chance to play a few matches as Zerg. Here are some of his findings:
* The game's readability is pretty nice. It just takes getting used to all the new units. In person, I found this game to look very clean; I'm sure the final version will look awesome.
* I only played Zerg and lets just say...there are many, many units. It also doesn't hurt that you can now select 40 of your little Cracklings into one large group.
* Hatcheries have two rallypoints, one for Drones and one for the rest of the units.
* When you select multiple Hatcheries and hit the Larva button, all Larvae will be selected. Then each keystroke will mutate one Larva. Had a lot of fun in the first match, over-mined a lot, then pumped from five Hatcheries. Every minute there'd be 25 new units
* Queen now has something like Razor Swarm, basically a mobile Psi Storm with insects shredding units.
* Warp Rays kill buildings...fast. If you have no AA when they come, you better have multiple expos. Banshees too - they are very, very strong. Six Banshees can wreak havoc.
* I never noticed this in the screenshots, but in person, you can feel that the game is much more zoomed out. 25 Lings + 10 Hydras only occupy a surprisingly small portion of the screen.
* For the gas mechanic, you had two nodes, which would occasionally run out of gas and then automatically shut down and refill after some time. It felt slightly odd, I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve with that.
* Units move in a blob, until they come to a corner... then the group tends to stretch out, sort of like in the original. But they'll fall back into that blob shape at the destination.
StarCraft II was played on Asus Republic of Gamers G71V laptops during the event with these specs:
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements. These laptops ran the game at max settings at a very smooth frame rate, and were mainly at the event to promote Asus laptops.
On January 15 2009 22:15 lolaloc wrote: * I only played Zerg and lets just say...there are many, many units. It also doesn't hurt that you can now select 40 of your little Cracklings into one large group.
Only 40? Didn't they say the selection was (practically) unlimited?
I don't think it'll actually be that similar to storm, it's damage output is obviously going to be much lower, as it's a moving thing, not like the storm which is cast in an area and that's it. It'll probably stick around for a lot longer though, but move slowly. Would be awesome if you ensnared a group of MnM and swarmed 'em, and as they tried to run away you tracked them with it.
But then again, the pros would just learn to split their forces into little clumps as they run away, so you can't target them all at once.
I'd say it'd work like a moveable and controllable low DPS AoE spell.
On January 15 2009 22:15 lolaloc wrote: * I only played Zerg and lets just say...there are many, many units. It also doesn't hurt that you can now select 40 of your little Cracklings into one large group.
Only 40? Didn't they say the selection was (practically) unlimited?
On January 15 2009 22:15 lolaloc wrote: * I only played Zerg and lets just say...there are many, many units. It also doesn't hurt that you can now select 40 of your little Cracklings into one large group.
Only 40? Didn't they say the selection was (practically) unlimited?
I think he just said 40 as an example.
It is capped at 255 units in a single group now, AFAIK.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
razor swarm lol... zerg version of psi storm. i guess they are still tweaking a lot of stuff. doesnt bode well.. thought sc2 would get released around april this year.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
Hmm, really? I'm no English expert, but I think "A is nowhere near B" means that A is subpar to B in some way. Not just different, but subpar. Like
- That last game between Bisu and Jaedong was incredible! - Yeah, but it was nowhere near the one on Blue Storm...
So seeing "this is nowhere near the actual game requirements" would imply that the actual requirements are (way) higher.
Or am I nowhere near the truth?
Yes this is a good explanation. Although one might think it could be used both ways I have never seen it used like A is nowhere near B and meaning that B is the worse one.
In other news, it seems that people are liking SC2 when they play it. Sound like it should be good, especially after beta.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
Hmm, really? I'm no English expert, but I think "A is nowhere near B" means that A is subpar to B in some way. Not just different, but subpar. Like
- That last game between Bisu and Jaedong was incredible! - Yeah, but it was nowhere near the one on Blue Storm...
So seeing "this is nowhere near the actual game requirements" would imply that the actual requirements are (way) higher.
Or am I nowhere near the truth?
My point was that ManWithCheese seemed to take "far away" to mean "game isn't out for a long time" while I don't think that's what he meant to say.
Maybe I'm wrong but this is why I got that impression:
To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
Hmm, really? I'm no English expert, but I think "A is nowhere near B" means that A is subpar to B in some way. Not just different, but subpar. Like
- That last game between Bisu and Jaedong was incredible! - Yeah, but it was nowhere near the one on Blue Storm...
So seeing "this is nowhere near the actual game requirements" would imply that the actual requirements are (way) higher.
Or am I nowhere near the truth?
My point was that ManWithCheese seemed to take "far away" to mean "game isn't out for a long time" while I don't think that's what he meant to say.
Maybe I'm wrong but this is why I got that impression:
To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
I see...I was thinking you were supporting Klockan3's post "nowhere near doesn't mean way below". And I though ManWithCheese just tried to say that SC2 hasn't been optimised yet, so Blizzard used much stronger computers than necessary...
So this thread has essentially moved to: what does nowhere near mean?? We all know what he means (I think)
So the game is scoped out more, which is good considering there will be a lot more units. Does a lot more units still leave room for as much micro? In sc1, even in midgame, one might pull back damaged units. It seems like you can now get a lot, quickly.
However, will it allow for more complex tactics? Surround, and flanks, would be emphasized, and I could see progamers pulling off more complex formations with the ability to control large armies all at once, and with the units to pull the maneuvers off. In sc1, your strategy was limited by never having more than way 60, maybe 70 units clash at once?
IMO, I prefer the game to be a bit more up close to the units rather than being scoped out. When the view is closer, it gives the battles a bit more intensity and excitement. When its all scoped out, all those exciting battles aren't as exciting as they used to be.
On January 16 2009 07:55 ilovehnk wrote: sounds like wc3 to me, even copied from cryptlord's ultimate spells, and have mediocore units do so much damage
Yeah, WC3 has spells and units and buildings and guess what Starcraft 2 has spells and units and buildings... a coincidence? I think not! It's pretty obvious Blizzard is just copying Warcraft 3!
On January 16 2009 07:55 ilovehnk wrote: sounds like wc3 to me, even copied from cryptlord's ultimate spells, and have mediocore units do so much damage
Yeah, WC3 has spells and units and buildings and guess what Starcraft 2 has spells and units and buildings... a coincidence? I think not! It's pretty obvious Blizzard is just copying Warcraft 3!
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
Hmm, really? I'm no English expert, but I think "A is nowhere near B" means that A is subpar to B in some way. Not just different, but subpar. Like
- That last game between Bisu and Jaedong was incredible! - Yeah, but it was nowhere near the one on Blue Storm...
So seeing "this is nowhere near the actual game requirements" would imply that the actual requirements are (way) higher.
Or am I nowhere near the truth?
That's an interesting take.
In real life, the semantics of "nowhere near..." tends to be along the line you suggest. But this has to do with the voice of, and emphasis placed by the speaker.
On the internet however you do not have access to these two keyfactors (along with facial expression etc.). Therefore, the semantics of written material need to follow a more, rigid word-by-word translation in order to avoid misunderstandings.
So, in conclusion, I would say that you are wrong because you are inferring something because you treat oral material and written material in the same way.
However, this is nowhere near the actual game requirements.
i think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that it is way below.
No company would go to an event to show off a game that isn't fully optimized on a low end computer that can only play it on minimum specs, they use top end machines to make sure people see the best of the game at a good fps or in this case have a company sponsor them and supply the computers so they can show off their computers/laptops. To say this game is still far off is just being foolish.
Eh, that's not his point. Original post:
However this is nowhere near the actual game requirements
Rei's post:
I think you mean this is way above the actual game requirements
Klockan3's post:
Nowhere near just means that it is far away, not that is way below
By far away he meant that the actual requirements are simply way different from the machines used.
Hmm, really? I'm no English expert, but I think "A is nowhere near B" means that A is subpar to B in some way. Not just different, but subpar. Like
- That last game between Bisu and Jaedong was incredible! - Yeah, but it was nowhere near the one on Blue Storm...
So seeing "this is nowhere near the actual game requirements" would imply that the actual requirements are (way) higher.
Or am I nowhere near the truth?
What you're saying makes sense, but that's in different context, and context is very important. "Nowhere near" is not indicative or inferiority or superiority, or at least I wouldn't assume either one if someone said it. In context, it makes more sense, and in the case of the SCII specs, it's safer to assume that the spec requirements will be much lower instead of much higher.
I tend to look more for "A is nowhere near the ___ of B" or "In terms of ___, A is nowhere near B." Without it, you could make the assumption, but it's a lot of dangerous without proper context.
Translated information Xordiah gave at the ESL Finals (9.-10. January 2009)
- the actuall build contains some dark pylons, which hab´ve a cooldown that when triggered speeds up the probes harvesting.
- The command center also has a cooldown that enables it to summon a bigger scv which collects resources faster.
Is that truth? That's an addition to gas mechanics? Are they serious? Honestly, with such 'solutions' I better see auto-mining dropped, and I really don't wanna auto-mining dropped o.O
Heh, they brought Dark Pylons back, but made it macro-based. Last I recall they were supposed to cloak buildings. I also laughed at the big SCV. That just sounds hilarious.
They all sound kinda gimmicky, so I'm guessing these are intended to be mostly just interesting, fun features rather than any solution to macro. Let's hope the Macro Contest will help get some good ideas into Blizzard's head by the time beta comes around.
- The command center also has a cooldown that enables it to summon a bigger scv which collects resources faster.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading this. Its one thing to have a cooldown macro mechanic (probably the most stable sort proposed) it is another to have it be so lame and funny at the same time.
What I do know is that I'll be blaming the dumb macro crowd forever if that makes into the final game.
But seriously, regardless of how ridiculous giant SCVs sound, it's nice to know Blizzard is putting some effort into adding some macro back into the game.
More gimmicks? Don't they get we don't need gimmicks, every other freaking RTS has a bunch of stupid gimmicks... at least learn from their mistakes... drop all these mineral and gas "mechanics", the choice is between having automining or not and they should decide between these two, there is no third option of adding stupid gimmicks or at least it's a terrible one.
On January 17 2009 17:09 lololol wrote: More gimmicks? Don't they get we don't need gimmicks, every other freaking RTS has a bunch of stupid gimmicks... at least learn from their mistakes... drop all these mineral and gas "mechanics", the choice is between having automining or not and they should decide between these two, there is no third option of adding stupid gimmicks or at least it's a terrible one.
Yah and while your at it get rid of the Warp-In gimmick and the faster creep gimmick. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build on creep too. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build supply its artificial and needless busy work.
Like most things in life there are good "gimmicks" and bad "gimmicks." Try and remember that what your are viewing is a snapshot of the game development. The take-home point is that they are addressing the macro problem. That is important.
not to start another MBS discussion, but WHY get rid of SBS and destroy macro and then try and bring in gimmicks to make up for it.
I cant really think that giant scv + weird dark pylon + upgradeable depots (which I actually support) is all that easier than simple SBS.
Its like they removed difficulty for the noobs, realized that that difficulty was required, and threw in gimmicks while ignoring that they have the same benefits/drawbacks of SBS. Its hilarious. And these gimmicks are even harder for a noob to understand/remember than SBS is.
not to start another MBS discussion, but WHY get rid of SBS and destroy macro and then try and bring in gimmicks to make up for it.
I cant really think that giant scv + weird dark pylon + upgradeable depots (which I actually support) is all that easier than simple SBS.
Its like they removed difficulty for the noobs, realized that that difficulty was required, and threw in gimmicks while ignoring that they have the same benefits/drawbacks of SBS. Its hilarious. And these gimmicks are even harder for a noob to understand/remember than SBS is.
I really don't understand you sometimes Blizzard
The idea is that Blizzard may lose the casual crowd if they feel the UI is "outdated" with things like SBS and auto-mine. Making actual game mechanics do the job may create a positive reaction however. Casuals often whine that SBS and auto-mine are artificial and unfun, but at the very least something like a Dark Pylon gives off some strategic value in casuals eyes.
Remember that SC1 had a top of the line UI by RTS standards when it came out. Blizzard games are always known as easy to learn and hard to master, so living up to that philosophy is much harder to do when a lot of SC's appeal lies upon the UI being casual-unfriendly by today's standards.
While in this case I don't really mind the inclusion of gameplay mechanics to compensate for MBS/automine, the general trend in videogames is for increasingly noob-friendly UIs and increasingly small skill differentiation. So that has me worried - when they make "starcraft 3" in 2020 (or any future blizzard RTS for that matter), what are they going to do then?
On January 17 2009 17:09 lololol wrote: More gimmicks? Don't they get we don't need gimmicks, every other freaking RTS has a bunch of stupid gimmicks... at least learn from their mistakes... drop all these mineral and gas "mechanics", the choice is between having automining or not and they should decide between these two, there is no third option of adding stupid gimmicks or at least it's a terrible one.
Yah and while your at it get rid of the Warp-In gimmick and the faster creep gimmick. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build on creep too. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build supply its artificial and needless busy work.
These "gimmicks" deepen the game. They pump not only additional skill but also a lot of strategy in the game. Warp-in and creep bonuses in particular have potential to evolve together with game. And even total noobs can find them to be fun. Just to get the point through:
- the actuall build contains some dark pylons, which hab´ve a cooldown that when triggered speeds up the probes harvesting.
I would hate it a bit less, if it was kinda like shield battery that is useful by itself but has side effect of increasing income. Let's say
Dark Pylon, that has 200 mana. All units in its range automatically get small damage bonus, but drain mana from pylon. The more units in range, the faster it run outs of mana. The only way to recharge mana is to sacrifice one of your own units to this pylon. For probes this damage bonus acts as resource gathering bonus. And of course it's killable just like other pylons.
Still not great, but at least it's a bit less blatant "CLICK HERE TO GET MORE $$$ MONKEY" button, since it can be used now for defense or even offense...
On January 17 2009 17:09 lololol wrote: More gimmicks? Don't they get we don't need gimmicks, every other freaking RTS has a bunch of stupid gimmicks... at least learn from their mistakes... drop all these mineral and gas "mechanics", the choice is between having automining or not and they should decide between these two, there is no third option of adding stupid gimmicks or at least it's a terrible one.
Yah and while your at it get rid of the Warp-In gimmick and the faster creep gimmick. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build on creep too. Oh and the gimmick about needing to build supply its artificial and needless busy work.
These "gimmicks" deepen the game. They pump not only additional skill but also a lot of strategy in the game. Warp-in and creep bonuses in particular have potential to evolve together with game. And even total noobs can find them to be fun.
Am i the only one that feels in the video shown in the op the player has nothing to do? All hes doing is moving his lings around, spamming rally and building drones/lings, apparently hes too stupid to use automine also(while im against the idea of automine, if its in the game you should probably use it)
I hope it's just the player being bad, but jesus christ you're doing more at 1 minute mark in starcraft than this guy is doing probably 3-4 minutes into the game.
On January 18 2009 09:57 7th-Real wrote: Am i the only one that feels in the video shown in the op the player has nothing to do? All hes doing is moving his lings around, spamming rally and building drones/lings, apparently hes too stupid to use automine also(while im against the idea of automine, if its in the game you should probably use it)
I hope it's just the player being bad, but jesus christ you're doing more at 1 minute mark in starcraft than this guy is doing probably 3-4 minutes into the game.
Looks kind of boring. :[
sc:bw looks really boring to, when you are watching a noob.
On January 18 2009 09:57 7th-Real wrote: Am i the only one that feels in the video shown in the op the player has nothing to do? All hes doing is moving his lings around, spamming rally and building drones/lings, apparently hes too stupid to use automine also(while im against the idea of automine, if its in the game you should probably use it)
I hope it's just the player being bad, but jesus christ you're doing more at 1 minute mark in starcraft than this guy is doing probably 3-4 minutes into the game.
not to start another MBS discussion, but WHY get rid of SBS and destroy macro and then try and bring in gimmicks to make up for it.
I cant really think that giant scv + weird dark pylon + upgradeable depots (which I actually support) is all that easier than simple SBS.
Its like they removed difficulty for the noobs, realized that that difficulty was required, and threw in gimmicks while ignoring that they have the same benefits/drawbacks of SBS. Its hilarious. And these gimmicks are even harder for a noob to understand/remember than SBS is.
I really don't understand you sometimes Blizzard
The idea is that Blizzard may lose the casual crowd if they feel the UI is "outdated" with things like SBS and auto-mine. Making actual game mechanics do the job may create a positive reaction however. Casuals often whine that SBS and auto-mine are artificial and unfun, but at the very least something like a Dark Pylon gives off some strategic value in casuals eyes.
Remember that SC1 had a top of the line UI by RTS standards when it came out. Blizzard games are always known as easy to learn and hard to master, so living up to that philosophy is much harder to do when a lot of SC's appeal lies upon the UI being casual-unfriendly by today's standards.
it totally didnt though. I wrote a long article on it, but I can't find it. Other games came out at the same time or earlier had more 'advanced' features/UI
There is something else people are missing though. You can think of it as a natural progression of stone age UI to "more advanced" UI. This is correct in some cases. In other cases, and this is what I think many people overlook, gameplay determines the appopriate UI. UI is an critical component of gameplay and how your game will feel. So in some cases its "what is the most advanced UI". In other cases its "what is the most appropriate UI for the game we are trying to make".
To paraphrase "Newer is not better, better is better."
EPT
