Dyret
Super Carrot!
They shut down a mod we don't need anymore, made an amazing and epic strategy game, and then one of the most addictive and popular MMORPG's of all time. Yeah, I can see why their next project will have to suck.
Starcraft 2
- Thread starter Pedro
- Start date
They shut down a mod we don't need anymore, made an amazing and epic strategy game, and then one of the most addictive and popular MMORPG's of all time. Yeah, I can see why their next project will have to suck.
Claymore
Rear Admiral
Outstanding!
StarCraft was by far my favorite game of all time. I used to play under the battle.net account name "War_Panther." I've had atleast 3 copies of the battle chest. When I read the article about it on Saturday I was very excited.
The races in the first StarCraft were so balanced. And the story was so engrossing. StarCraft 2 has alot to live up to. I played straight through the Terran Campaign in a day and was amazed to find 2 other campaigns. The only other games I've played straight through on were MechWarrior 4 Mercs and Prophecy.
An article on gamespot said they were very far along in development and had been working on it since late 2003. So does anybody know the release date? And why did they stop working StarCraft: Ghost? Was it just not good enough to carry the name StarCraft? I hope that means that they won't rush StarCraft 2. And it will own up to the original.
All in all. It's been a good weekend considering that StarCraft 2 will be out someday and I got this new Linkin Park Cd. I should be bummed that I have to re take Calc 3. But, StarCraft 2 is coming. Now, all that's left on my wish list is a new MechWarrior game, a sequel to Prophecy, and another episode of Standoff.
StarCraft was by far my favorite game of all time. I used to play under the battle.net account name "War_Panther." I've had atleast 3 copies of the battle chest. When I read the article about it on Saturday I was very excited.
The races in the first StarCraft were so balanced. And the story was so engrossing. StarCraft 2 has alot to live up to. I played straight through the Terran Campaign in a day and was amazed to find 2 other campaigns. The only other games I've played straight through on were MechWarrior 4 Mercs and Prophecy.
An article on gamespot said they were very far along in development and had been working on it since late 2003. So does anybody know the release date? And why did they stop working StarCraft: Ghost? Was it just not good enough to carry the name StarCraft? I hope that means that they won't rush StarCraft 2. And it will own up to the original.
All in all. It's been a good weekend considering that StarCraft 2 will be out someday and I got this new Linkin Park Cd. I should be bummed that I have to re take Calc 3. But, StarCraft 2 is coming. Now, all that's left on my wish list is a new MechWarrior game, a sequel to Prophecy, and another episode of Standoff.
I think Ghost got bounced around between developers and failed to live up to expectations. It couldn't have helped that it was going to be console-only, pissing off the people who have supported Blizzard over the years.
By the way, right on about Mechwarrior 5, Mechassault doesn't do it for me and you can only replay Mechwarrior 3 a certain number of times before you start to lose your mind. (The maximum number of times you can play through Mechwarrior 3 without losing your mind is twenty)
You should check out the cinematic trailer, though... except for a possible campaign character it doesn't give away much, and it's unimaginably awesome.
Then again, it does give a hint about cutscene quality, so maybe you're better off not watching it after all.
I just finished downloading it and it reminds me of a certain video from Super Wing Commander
I'm really looking forward to Starcraft II. I think it's still going to be a long time till it's released. And yes, at a glance, the graphics didn't look too great. Or in other words, so far it just looks like Starcraft 3D. But I was somewhat reassured in the demo video when they mention that it's still a work in progress and they have a lot of fine tuning to do.
Besides gameplay, I've always been interested in Starcraft and Diablo lore. And so I think it will be great to see where the game picks up from the last one. I'm also really hoping they might announce Diablo III at Blizzcon this year but I'm pretty skeptical overall of that.
Besides gameplay, I've always been interested in Starcraft and Diablo lore. And so I think it will be great to see where the game picks up from the last one. I'm also really hoping they might announce Diablo III at Blizzcon this year but I'm pretty skeptical overall of that.
I hope people don't get upset that Starcraft II isn't dolled up like Doom 3 or whatever the graphics high-mark is at the moment. What I think is far and away most important is that the sequel stays true to the established style of Starcraft, which seems to be the case.
I watched the full length HD gameplay demonstration and I was pretty impressed with the graphics, especially considering that the engine also has real-time physics and they had a pretty large Zergling rush without any visible slowdown. Graphics don't have to be stellar for me to enjoy a game though, especially when it comes to an RTS. I think it looks like a fun game regardless.
What I thought was kind of tacky about the real-time physics was how the Battlecruisers were destroyed. The way they would break apart and fall on the ground made the ships look cheap and non-functional. I would prefer they just blew up in the air with bits of flaming wreakage falling toward the ground as opposed to it breaking in pieces and large chunks of the ship sliding down a ramp. But in the original Starcraft, I think with the graphics engine they had at the time, they way the ships moved and exploded and fired its guns did a slightly better job at conveying scale.
Hopefully that's just something that's still a work in progress, though.
Hopefully that's just something that's still a work in progress, though.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
That's some pretty silly complaints.
Anyway, the game looks exactly like Starcraft on true 3D is supposed to look like.
I can't even being to fathom what the hell people expected, other than what Blizzard showed so far. Something realistic like Company of Heroes? Something that looks like C&C3?
I don't get it. SC2 looks awesome. It doesn't need to be improved.
Thunderbolt
Rear Admiral
I think Starcraft 2 was always on Blizzards agender. They reaped as much as they could (and still are) from World of Warcraft but that MMORPG even with the expansion is clearly dated and newer MMORPG's like Lord of the Rings Online may take a slice of the online market from Blizzard. Postponing Starcraft 2 has left Blizzard with another card in its deck that they can release once the MMORPG market tires of World of Warcraft.
Its probably all just very smart marketing but I'm happy they are making a sequel anyway. Starcraft really excelled with its 3 unique races and I dont think any other RTS has been able to create and balance completely diverse races to that extent.
Its probably all just very smart marketing but I'm happy they are making a sequel anyway. Starcraft really excelled with its 3 unique races and I dont think any other RTS has been able to create and balance completely diverse races to that extent.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm willing to bet that World of Warcraft and Starcraft 2 have two separate development teams.
Thunderbolt
Rear Admiral
Long development is a good sign cause it should guarantee a balanced bug free game. I hate the way that EA releases games after 1 year of development. It just isnt enough time to add the final touches and do proper bug checks. Hence why we get patches
But Starcraft 2 has a lot to live up to so I'm glad they are taking their time with it. However i've never been very impressed with Blizzards graphics in their previous games - both 2D and 3D - so I hope they do it right this time.
WoW may not be slowing down yet (im not sure on the stats) but I think it must have reached its peak by now or if it hasn't it should very soon. Surely it can't last forever before something else replaces it.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
In this case, Blizzard's track record would suggest the game should be balanced and relatively bug-free, but long development times can also be caused because the developers lack direction and have to retool their project multiple times. It doesn't automatically mean a final game will be a high quality product.
I hate the way that EA releases games after 1 year of development. It just isnt enough time to add the final touches and do proper bug checks. Hence why we get patches
The games you're complaining about are the annual franchises that often build off prior years' engines and spend much of that year getting final touches and bug fixes. EA's "main" games often spend several years in production, and they've spent more than twice as long on Arena as a typical Live Arcade game gets. The original Starcraft is still getting bug & exploit fix patches ten years later too (as recently as last month).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
... he proudly stated. Meanwhile, EA announces to investors that Spore will be getting an *eighth* year of development time.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
I agree with you; Just wanna state for the record that, when I said "long time" before Thunderbolt's post, I meant "longer than a couple of months", i.e., they didn't just start it.
My problems with the way SC2 looks mostly comes from, well... Way too bright of a color pallet. Think about it: The first Starcraft had a drab, almost gritty, dirty look to it. SC2 has a overly bright, cartoony look to it. (Perhas i'm being spoiled by C&C3.) Don't get me wrong, I really wan't to see SC2 get the light of day it really deserves. I'm just put off as of this writing.