Starcraft 2

[The_Doctor]

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790124p1.html
http://uk.media.pc.gamespy.com/media...26/imgs_1.html

It looks a hell of a lot like the first one. Even the units and buildings look the same.

[Tran]

Hmmm...I thought after all these years, SC2 was just a hoax...turned out to be wrong...

EDIT: Interesting...I wonder where (in-game campaign) the storyline will take us and continue?

[sapi]

Looks interesting

I'm betting on a continued storyline - a new unit being the Protoss 'mothership' is a good hint

[Rilder]

Looking at the pics and.. meh... tbh it just doesn't look like an RTS i'd look at in a store and say, "ooh this looks cool" in all honesty it just looks like WoW on an RTS, the units have that WoW cartoonlike look, besides I never really gave a **** about Starcraft 1, played it a few hours and enjoyed it I guess, but Star craft 2 is just not a game I want.

[Tran]

In case you didn't notice, there's also a video:

http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/85...26/vids_1.html

[Tran]

http://www.starcraft2.com/

[Kekvit Irae]

And Koreans will STILL be playing the original Star Craft. kekekeke

[The_Doctor]

And Koreans will STILL be playing the original Star Craft.

And dieing, don't forget dieing of Starcraft.

[Kekvit Irae]

And dieing, don't forget dieing of Starcraft.

When you are in a professional leagues that limit you to four hours of sleep a day are not the killers (they cook for the gamers), but it is the amateurs that killing themselves. When you have the fastest internet connections in the world, all for $1.50 an hour for the fanciest cyber cafes, it's easy enough to forget the little things... like eating.

[cunctator]

I hope Starcraft 2 will be more than just starcraft with a few new units and a new graphic engine, but that's perhaps exactly what the E-Sports crowd demands.

[Lehesu]

Actually, Starcraft with better graphics and a small amount of game tweaks and a few new wrinkles in gameplay would be perfect. Don't mess with success.

[Kekvit Irae]

Actually, Starcraft with better graphics and a small amount of game tweaks and a few new wrinkles in gameplay would be perfect 7 years ago.

Fixed.
We ARE talking about a game that's nine years old.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So they add a few units and unit abilities, and give it a Warcraft 3 graphics engine. The only reason I'd buy it would be for the atmosphere/storyline (check out the teaser cinematic, it's pretty awesome) and that's only 5 years later when the price is about $20.

[Abokasee]

Cant see it? click here

Tactics wont seem to be much different, same old zerg rush, different graphics.

[lars573]

I hope Starcraft 2 will be more than just starcraft with a few new units and a new graphic engine, but that's perhaps exactly what the E-Sports crowd demands.

This is Blizzard we're talking about. New ideas go against company policy.

[Lehesu]

All I am saying, is that I have seen a lot of gimmicky crap aimed at "revolutionizing" the genre when the best, most meaningful changes just streamline or make better the existing pattern. If they can do this to Starcraft without adding gimmicky crap, I will be happy.

However, I am going to go ahead and say that I am already rather iffy about the graphics. Starcraft needs to be grittier.

[sapi]

Yeh - I'd have preferred graphics more along the lines of the concept art than what I'm seeing ingame.

Will definitely still buy it though - loved the original

[sapi]

Hang on....Hang on!!

From the Inquirer:

We left the best thing for the last. Traditionally, Blizzard was always announcing titles years before they will come to life. My first touch with World of WarCraft happened on ECTS in 2001, first touch with Diablo II and its add-on came during E3 and ECTS 2000 and so on. But now, StarCraft II is not being announced year or two prior to release. Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of this year.

[Tran]

Ever heard of the word:

Postpone?

[Kekvit Irae]

Ever heard of the word:

Postpone?

Three words: Duke Nukem Forever.

[Geoffrey S]

I've never played Starcraft, but this news prompted me to Wikipedia it, and look on Youtube for movies. The story is fascinating, with great characters and the like. And it also makes me disappointed by the cartoonish graphics; the concept art is brilliant, it'd be nice to see that represented ingame.

[Gregoshi]

Well, I'm rather excited about the coming of SC2. I loved the original - in fact, I'm in the middle of replaying all the single player missions. I just finished SC and am ready to move on to Brood War. If the gameplay and storyline are good, I can deal with any misgivings about the graphics. I do like some aspects of the graphic, but other things don't quite look right. It is early though, so I'll withhold any serious judgement later - like when the demo comes out (that's a hint Blizzard).

Regarding "postponed", the point, I think, is that SC2 wasn't announced until was much further along than the other quoted Blizzard games. Even if it is postponed, it is a postponement 6 months from now rather than 2 years hence.

[Monarch]

Well after only coming to pc gaming in the past couple of years I've heard so much about this legendary game, Starcraft. So as soon as I saw SC2 was announced on GameSpot I set about absorbing as much information as possible...I couldn't care less now.

I feel the best RTS on the market is Company of Heroes, RTS should be about tactics, positioning, flanking etc. However in the Q&A session on gamespot Blizzard are actually boasting about (as opposed to WC3) a return to more emphasis on resource management and rushing...the two things I hate in RTS. This is the reason I like CoH, with the machine guns at bases from the start rushing is impossible and the resource system in CoH is brilliant.

This SC2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, heck I don't even think it has destructable environments that makes CoH and the upcoming World In Conflict (which also doesn't have resources as we know and loathe them) so visually brilliant.

The game looks like its for existing SC fans, from what I've seen its not going to win any new fans, heck even AoE 3 Far East Xpack looks better. With WiC and new CoH expansion coming out later this year...this game will struggle, if it wasn't called SC2, and for arguments sake called Warhammer 40k: But Without The Licence (WH40K: TWTL...rolls off ya tongue) I doubt anyone would be second glancing at information about it.

[doc_bean]

Well after only coming to pc gaming in the past couple of years I've heard so much about this legendary game, Starcraft. So as soon as I saw SC2 was announced on GameSpot I set about absorbing as much information as possible...I couldn't care less now.

I feel the best RTS on the market is Company of Heroes, RTS should be about tactics, positioning, flanking etc. However in the Q&A session on gamespot Blizzard are actually boasting about (as opposed to WC3) a return to more emphasis on resource management and rushing...the two things I hate in RTS. This is the reason I like CoH, with the machine guns at bases from the start rushing is impossible and the resource system in CoH is brilliant.

This SC2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, heck I don't even think it has destructable environments that makes CoH and the upcoming World In Conflict (which also doesn't have resources as we know and loathe them) so visually brilliant.

The game looks like its for existing SC fans, from what I've seen its not going to win any new fans, heck even AoE 3 Far East Xpack looks better. With WiC and new CoH expansion coming out later this year...this game will struggle, if it wasn't called SC2, and for arguments sake called Warhammer 40k: But Without The Licence (WH40K: TWTL...rolls off ya tongue) I doubt anyone would be second glancing at information about it.

StarCraft was one of the first games to emphasize 'tactical' gameplay to some degree. But it's ancient by todays standards and has been surpassed by the likes of DoW (incidentally, i believe StarCraft was originally intended to be a warhammer 40K game).

[Ironside]

Well after only coming to pc gaming in the past couple of years I've heard so much about this legendary game, Starcraft. So as soon as I saw SC2 was announced on GameSpot I set about absorbing as much information as possible...I couldn't care less now.

I feel the best RTS on the market is Company of Heroes, RTS should be about tactics, positioning, flanking etc. However in the Q&A session on gamespot Blizzard are actually boasting about (as opposed to WC3) a return to more emphasis on resource management and rushing...the two things I hate in RTS. This is the reason I like CoH, with the machine guns at bases from the start rushing is impossible and the resource system in CoH is brilliant.

This SC2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, heck I don't even think it has destructable environments that makes CoH and the upcoming World In Conflict (which also doesn't have resources as we know and loathe them) so visually brilliant.

Games doesn't usually age well with time, their ideas will get stolen and improved.

What made Starcraft truely brilliant at it's time was that it had 3 very different races, that they were balanced, that all units never became obsolete and one of the better stories to wrap it in. It still holds it own today though, and worth buying if you haven't tried it out yet. No rushing in SP, but acuiring new resources is vital though.

Basically the economical stuff is to find a good optimum of workers (2/crystal tops iirc, 3 for the gas plant on shortest distance), protect them, acuire new resources and churn out the correct mixture of troops (depends on what you plans and what the opponent got).
Early rushing is there though, mostly to counter teching.

FYI the static defences are much, much stronger in SC than in WCIII. To prove it, I'll ask Gregoshi to not use static defences in the campaign .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When you hear the thud of Gregoshi fainting you'll know that he red this

I'm very pleased to hear about this BTW, they might even do something with the Umojan who certainly looks like a cut thread (although it wouldn't surprice me if Reynor got sopme connections there).

[Lehesu]

It is interesting that so many loathe resource gathering in games when the root of much conflict comes from the existence of limited resources.

[TevashSzat]

Wow, it has been finally made. Now everyone pray for Diablo III

[Gregoshi]

FYI the static defences are much, much stronger in SC than in WCIII. To prove it, I'll ask Gregoshi to not use static defences in the campaign .

Thud...

There are a few factors that made SC such a great game. First, as Ironside mentioned, was the unique races. Second was the balance. When I played online, I never had issue with playing any of the races. Third was the rock-paper-scissors nature of the units. In this, SC shared the same feature that still endears many of us to STW. Fourth, if you were into single player games, it had a great storyline. I remember feeling the outrage regarding Kerrigan near the end of the Terran campaign and I'm still a little broken up about Tassadar. Fifth, online play was pretty fun. I only ever played with friends and all of us were turtling experts, so rushing was a non-issue for us. Even if SC2 doesn't bring any major revolutionary gameplay to the table, as long as it has the strong genes of its predecessor, I think it will be a pretty good game. Asking for a phenomenal repeat of SC's success might be asking too much, but Blizzard does have a knack for doing so.

Excellent point about the resources Lehesu.

[Ironside]

It is interesting that so many loathe resource gathering in games when the root of much conflict comes from the existence of limited resources.

And one of the primal principles of warfare is to have your troops well equiped and well fed, while denying the enemy the same...

[Kekvit Irae]

And one of the primal principles of warfare is to have your troops well equiped and well fed, while denying the enemy the same...

Is one of the principles to build tanks, train fresh troops, and have miners work on the frontlines? I think not.