Printable View
Well, I prefer(ed) Warcraft over Stracraft (that is, until Blizzard butchered the background with WoW), but I sure am awaiting this game, if only to know what will be happening to the characters.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Edit : And it's quite obvious that units and buildings look the same as they did in Starcraft. The game will likely take place a few year after Starcraft. I don't see why Terran design would change suddenly.
When you compress warfare into a small map with small units, you have to compress resources in there as well. This just has to be accepted, although the implementation of this compression can make-or-break a game. Part of the reason why we like Total War games is that the compression of resource gathering is not as blatant, as the game takes place at a broader scope than most RTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I thought that in a recent interview, Blizzard claims that there will only be the three original factions.
Lehesu, though I've heard the rumours about a forth race, you are correct about the races. According to the Blizzard Q&A session regarding the SC2 (on Gamespot):
Regarding resources:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamespot Q&A article
Regarding old SC characters appearing in SC2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamespot Q&A article
If interested, here is the full articleQuote:
Originally Posted by Gamespot Q&A article
Well, it's really up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch
Personally, I detest the 'resource management' in CoH and DoW (written like that because I don't want to stain the good name of such ideas by listing what currently exists in those leagues).
Running around capping static points on maps far too big for their intended purpose just ain't fun, IMO.
In SC, though, resources were vitally important. It took some time to build up enough units to fully capitalise on a mineral field, and as such it was a viable strategy to strike at such fields in order to delay the enemy, and it was equally important to defend them.
In games such as CoH, where you can get back to full use of a resource point in thirty seconds, the onus to do so simply isn't there.
It may just be a difference in play style, but it's an important one for me.
These new RTS games like CoH or Dawn of War seems vastly superior to the old Starcraft/Command and Conquer style, but trust me the original game was so awsome and still is because of how polished it was. It might not seem like that good, but just play the old one and you will get hooked in no time.
Yes, that's the biggest thing that SC has going for it - balance.
Every strategy has a counter, as does every counter-strategy :grin2:
It all comes down to who's the better player, not who has the better units...
Except that there's no defense against a wired-up Korean zergrushing you. kekekeQuote:
Originally Posted by sapi
With a little luck they'll add a new race most likely xel'naga or hybrid (Of all the races?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Yes, that's the biggest thing that SC has going for it - balance.
Every strategy has a counter, as does every counter-strategy
It all comes down to who's the better player, not who has the better units...
Or 25+ Protoss carriers with full fightersQuote:
Except that there's no defense against a wired-up Korean zergrushing you. kekeke
~EDIT~
Some video links from IGN of gameplay and cinematic
I lol'ed when I heard "Hell its about time" from a terrain marine
Well 2 vs 1 is usually hard in any game :laugh4:, but battlecruisers+wrights and a science vessel + ghosts for style or to counter that nasty arbiter for terran, scouts + dragoons and arbiter+a lucky high templar or 2, or 25 dark archons for pure evil for protoss and a devourer + mutalisk flood and defiler and scourges (after the mutalisks has engaged) for extra flavour for the zerg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
The hard part is to catch that they're spamming carriers in time to get enough counters.
The counter is people won't let you build up that much. If it was a team game either your allies will be long dead by then or you will be harrassed to the point where your huge carrier army will take forever to build. If everyone is techiing then carriers will be no good anyways seeing as how Battlecruisers + Science Vessel owns Carriers + Arbiters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
SC2... meh. When I played SC I completed the Terran campaign and most of the Zerg campaign and got so bored I proceeded to cheat my way through the rest of the game just so I could see all the cutscenes. I tried my hand at Brood Wars and thought was better done in terms of mission design but it was still pretty dull and I wound up using the cheats just so I could see its cutscenes as well. In the end I was so glad I borrowed SC and Brood Wars from a friend and didn't spend my own money on it. For me the high points of those games were the Terran campaigns and those glorious cutscenes.
Anyway all this SC2 hype does is heighten my anticipation for Dawn of War 2. Relic's Homeworld, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes series are the only 'traditional' RTS games I can tolerate and the only ones that seem to hold my interest sufficiently enough that I feel compelled to complete them without cheating. Relic's cutscenes positively pale in comparison to Blizzard's but I feel their gameplay and unit variety is far more interesting and fun.
I supposed i'll just bug that same friend for his copy of SC2 because I'm absolutely certain its cutscenes are going to be even more fun than the original's. SC2's cinematic trailer has already given us a taste of what to expect, it's simply fantastic.
People, RTS games are not known for their longevity due to awesome single player campaigns but for the online community and the diversity of maps that one can have with online
I loved the youtube comments.
"If only I would live to see Starcraft 2"
My sentiments exactly. Starcraft was a highly polished and balanced game, but in the end, I just don't find the gameplay in this type of RTS games very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Well, since SC was the first RTS I played, my opinion on it's a bit biased.
Amazing that I put up with playing it on N64 though :grin2:
You mean this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/...ergrushtr8.jpg
:laugh4:
There are counters to a zerg rush, though, if you know it's coming ~;)
Hilarious
What made Starcraft such a big success is the multiplayer part. The campaign was nothing exceptional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
In fact, I can tell that for most of the RTS games. To truly enjoy them, you have to play them in multiplayer mode.
Zerg rush? GET TO THE BUNKERS!
Pah! Rushing is for the technology challenged. My friends and I were turtlers extrordinair! We could tech up as much as we wanted. One 2v2 game, in fact, developed into a World War I style blood bath that lasted nearly 2 hours. Both sides exhausted their resources and then their units. Things were so desperate we even had an SCV vs Probe battle. The second hour was mostly a waste of time because my partner and I wouldn't say "draw". We played sniper: my observer would find targets for his queen to broodling. :laugh4: It was great fun. Alas, we eventually came to our senses and declared a draw after the enemy Terran floated his buildings out over water where we could no longer attack them. Stupid floating buildings. :laugh4:
^Then u must be playing the Imperial Guard in Dawn of War , if you like WWI style tactics.
Weeell, I held back from the initial impulse I had to post in this thread in the beginning, and it's prolly better that I did so.
I'm not sure why there are so many negative/pessimistic posts for the first part of the thread. I think we'd all have to admit Blizzard know what they're doing, and they've had absolutely smashing success with their games. No need to remind you how many people still play SC (and we're not even counting South Korea ~D), just check out the Diablo 2 players on bnet (over half a million last I checked) - and we're talking games that are 7 and 10 years old here...
As for WoW, it's by far the most successful MMO - that's gotta mean something (although I never played it, and I don't intend to).
As already mentioned, SC had (has) some excellent features: great balance, significantly different races, even the storyline (I, for one, really liked it). And I hugely enjoyed the campaigns.
There's excellent humor in their games, too, and the cinematics are nothing short of brilliant. The ones from SC and Diablo2 are by far, by far the best cinematics I've ever seen in any game. Bar none. The SC are generally humorous, and the D2 ones are surprisingly creepy/suspense-inducing. Achieving that with a 3-minute clip is amazing, imo.
Having seen the screenshots, I'm not overly excited at the new graphics. A bit over the board for my taste, but perhaps it just takes some getting used to.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as the balance is as good as in SC1, and they maintain a decent storyline, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
However, do keep in mind that this is a significantly different team than the one that designed the original SC and/or D2. A lot of those folks left Blizzard (North), so we'll see how big of an impact that has on the quality of the games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
DAM BEAT ME TO IT!!!
I strongly disagree with this. The Dawn of War hype advertised it as "revolutionizing RTS games with it's resource collection system". But it didn't. Going around having to cap points all over the map, then having to manually micro a peon worker around to each of those points, and keep watching them like a hawk constantly simply so you are able to start building on them right when enough of the resources become available, is an extremely cumbersome, wearing, and worst of all, vastly unfun gameplay mechanic. The aggravation of which is compounded immensely once one has under his belt hundreds of games of putting up with this agony anew each time a new game starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
The old style of "build resource collectors and let them collect" whilst you focus on building a base, army, and microing the combat units of said army, is a much superior design.
Well, that's certainly an opinion that you are entitled to. I, however, find that resourece "points" create a context to the conflict. In real warfare, certain areas become of great tactical or strategic importance for a variety of reasons. Most RTS fail to convey this. The resource system in CoH and DoW makes certain points of the map valuable and focuses the combat at those points. Thus, you have dramatic moments like holding of an enemy attack in a town square, kinds of situations that normally happen in warfare but don't happen in games unless the resource system dictates it.
Fights over resource patches develop all the time in RTS games. An enemy might have laid claim to it and you have to take it over, or he's sent troops to kill your miner and you have to beat them off and the like, from games such as C&C to Homeworld.
CoH is the same thing wrapped up differently - you don't harvest resources to buy troops and buildings, you just get 'points' which allow you to get more troops.