Starcraft 2 - Cant bloody wait.

Feelgood

This just looks awesome. Am a HUGE fan of starscraft and just heard that this bad boy was coming out recently and well I seriously can't wait. Am actually at the point of thinking about getting cryogenically frozen until the fecking thing gets here.

Fcuk the 360 and PS3, the entertainment value of Starcraft 1 beats any console game and hopefully #2 will do the same!!

http://eu.starcraft2.com/

R0ot

Looks nice, loved starcraft and i'm sure ill love starcraft II

MooseJam

it would be good if this was released on consoles

mayordenis

played it at the blizzard invitational it's ****ing awesome - it's gonna be the rts benchmark for the next 10 years, not unlike its predecessor

Azza

I can't say I'm too interested in this. It just looks too old school for me.

Yes its very pretty and all but it does not seem to advance the RTS genre at all. It looks too similar to the original game. I mean I know if you change it to much you will upset the series fans but its got very little to distingish itself from most other RTS games except its the sequel to Starcraft. This and Red Alert 3 just seem to offer no advance over there previous entrys. Although Blizzard will no doubt offer much better support than EA

I recently tried Starcraft and just could not get into it. I know it has a huge fanbase in South Korea along with an active competitive scene and its well known for its balance after the Brood Wars expansion and as a result its probably the most successfully RTS ever.

However I reckon its success is largely down to 3 facts. Its one of the games that established the RTS genre and was original when it started out allowing it to esablish its fan base. 2 balance and the compettive scene allowed it to keep its popularity. 3 it had low system requirements allow a large audience to play it. Starcraft 2 will have none of these things at launch therefore think it will struggle to make the impressions its predecessor once did.

This will no longer be the case with the sequel.

My hopes will be on relics DOW 2 and COH franchises instead if they ever manage to balance them.

mayordenis

I disagree completely starcraft, warcraft and red alert 2 have been my favourite rts games ever,
And I've been dying to have them brought up to date - I for don't want them to change dramatically and don't think they should. Just my opinion though more into the old type of RTS.

Feelgood

mayordenis wrote: »

I disagree completely starcraft, warcraft and red alert 2 have been my favourite rts games ever,
And I've been dying to have them brought up to date - I for don't want them to change dramatically and don't think they should. Just my opinion though more into the old type of RTS.

+1...

Starcraft for me defines PC gaming or gaming in general. I easily replay this game about 4 - 5 times a year. I own an Xbox 360 and PS3 and I can honestly say that with the exception of a handful of games there is not a game that offers the playability and entertainment value that Starcraft has to offer.

I remember playing this game on a 233mhz compact presario with 32mb of RAM way back yonder and to this day I get the same excitement out of playing it. Its like the Only fools and horses of gaming....

thelordofcheese

mayordenis wrote: »

played it at the blizzard invitational it's ****ing awesome - it's gonna be the rts benchmark for the next 10 years, not unlike its predecessor

Was it just me or were the protoss a little overpowered? I guess that they were just the race with the most work done on them for the build at the WWI but everyone seemed to be playing them, and the poor zerg/terran players seemed to get raped all the time.

Just wondering am i right or am i imagining things again....

Canis Lupus

Azza wrote: »

but it does not seem to advance the RTS genre at all. It looks too similar to the original game.

I've never played the original but sometimes I get a bit pissed off with this seeming need to reinvent the wheel every time a game comes out.

Sometimes it's nice to get something familiar but tweaked to give you a new experience. It's doesn't HAVE to be genre advancing to be fun.

Ciaran500

mayordenis wrote: »

it's gonna be the rts benchmark for the next 10 years, not unlike its predecessor

mayordenis wrote: »

And I've been dying to have them brought up to date - I for don't want them to change dramatically and don't think they should. Just my opinion though more into the old type of RTS.

So its going to be the benchmark for the next 10 years while not changing much from a 10 year old RTS?

Azza

Canis Lupus I take the opposite approach with the RTS genre. I think RTS games have recently become stale and very repetitive. Most are just CNC and Starcraft clones. I'm not to interested in any single player RTS any more as I find them all the same from Supreme Commander to CNC3. But at least DOW 2 and CNC Red Alert 3 offer co-op campaigns that might make them easiar to play through.

pwd

I really like starcraft too. I replayed it recently and started the brood war expansion. I find myself playing it more than the other games I have installed at the moment which are generally recent and well-reviewed (hl2 eps 1-2, bioshock, company of heroes). I'd be happy enough if starcraft 2 was fairly similar to the original but with good 3d graphics.

Seifer

Canis Lupus wrote:

I've never played the original but sometimes I get a bit pissed off with this seeming need to reinvent the wheel every time a game comes out.

It's not a case of reinventing the wheel but one of not taking steps backwards.
If you look at company of heroes. When your troops stand behind a wall they take less damage. When a ten rifle squads fire at a tank for an hour it does no damage to it because that's what tanks are designed to do. The resource income based on map control. All of these wonderful elements and more adding to the strategy of the rts.
Starcraft II goes back to blobbing your blob into their blob. But prettier.

thelordofcheese

Seifer wrote: »

Starcraft II goes back to blobbing your blob into their blob. But prettier.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Seifer

thelordofcheese wrote:

Then you're doing it wrong.

I haven't played Starcraft II just read about it and watched videos. It doesn't look like flanking plays any part in the game. There is no advantage to be gained from shooting things in the ass. A frontal blob assault still holds up.

Cabaal

I've always loved Starcraft to the point that over the years I've ended up with three copies of both Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood Wars, not played it in about 2 years now though but I must put in a pre-order for Starcraft II :pac:

pwd

It's not a case of reinventing the wheel but one of not taking steps backwards.
If you look at company of heroes. When your troops stand behind a wall they take less damage. When a ten rifle squads fire at a tank for an hour it does no damage to it because that's what tanks are designed to do. The resource income based on map control. All of these wonderful elements and more adding to the strategy of the rts.
Starcraft II goes back to blobbing your blob into their blob. But prettier.

resource income is based on map control in most rts games though. The resources run out too which means speed is more of a factor in taking them off the enemy.
As for tanks being resilient to damage from normal infantry - having units specifically suited to fighting a different type of enemy unit is also a normal feature of rts games.
The cover feature in company of heroes is a nice touch, but I don't see it as adding that much complexity to the strategy. Strategic positioning of units is common to most of these types of games too.
Personally I find starcraft more engaging and playable than coh. The realistic touches to COH appeal to a lot of people but it makes it a bit mundane and boring to me. In a fantastical setting like starcraft technologies and special attacks etc can be more imaginative, and the story and setting is more interesting.

thelordofcheese

Seifer wrote: »

I haven't played Starcraft II just read about it and watched videos. It doesn't look like flanking plays any part in the game. There is no advantage to be gained from shooting things in the ass. A frontal blob assault still holds up.

Then you *really* are doing it wrong.

The cover feature in company of heroes is a nice touch, but I don't see it as adding that much complexity to the strategy. Strategic positioning of units is common to most of these types of games too.

Aye, but more to the point, didn't the close combat series do cover like CoH about 10 years ago?
It's hardly new.

dbs_sailor

STARCRAFT

can't wait to be on blizzard be all

"1v1 lt k? k?"

and

"swe? swe?"

and then when i lose

"re? re????"

and doing ****ing zergling rushes and lifting off command centers and flying them to the little islands on lost temple or doing a zerg vs zerg match and when he's about to attack do a big ****ing nydus canal in his own base oh my **** i want to play sc right now

Seifer

thelordofcheese wrote:

Aye, but more to the point, didn't the close combat series do cover like CoH about 10 years ago?
It's hardly new.

Close combat's system was very basic and nothing all like CoH's one really.
What's your point if its not new in your opinion anyway?

pwd wrote:

resource income...more interesting.

Good post and perhaps it is the case that games like CoH have split the genre between a faster, more old school rts and a newer more tactical one.
If Dawn of War II took everything good about CoH and it being in a sci-fi setting, do you think you'd approve then?

thelordofcheese

Seifer wrote: »

Close combat's system was very basic and nothing all like CoH's one really.
What's your point if its not new in your opinion anyway?

My point is stop pretending that CoH is new and innovative when it's not.

Azza

Company of Heroes added much more than just a cover system although it plays an important part. For example if you charge an enemy unit head on thats in cover even with a unit thats better at close range fighting you may take too much damage for your units to be effective when they finally close up on the enemy. But if you advance using cover they will have enough strength to beat the enemy unit. COH moved away from the macro RTS type of games and placed a greater emphasis on microing your unts and the use of combined arms. It simply was not a case of x number of units type A beating x number of unit type B you had to use your units properly to achieve victory. You have to combine units to achieve goals. For example positioning your anti tank units to the rear of enemy armour while he is ditracted with your own amour so you can hit his weak spot. Kiting enemy troops with armoured vehicles. Positioning mines that criple enemy vehicles that otherwise would be too fast to hunt down on foot. Microing your tanks to keep its front armour facing towards the enemy. For example your MG is busying pinning enemy troops from a building but the enemy is trying to flank and nade it as you franticly try to get the unit out of a building. The need to reposition troops,counter-sniping/mortoring . Basically the game places its emphasis on tactics rather than strategy. You spend less time in your base and more time commanding your troops. You do have less units under your control (but I don't consider the number to be small) but you have a greater degree of control and abilitys. Each unit lost hurts way more than a single unit lost in most other RTS games. Base rushing while possible is not encouraged in this game something I consider refreshing as well.

2 major steps foward this game has made is strategic points that cut off enemys from there supplys is brillaint gameplay concept and I have not seen this done in other rts games. Secondly the destructable eviroment also adds to the options as you can break threw walls and hedgerows to attack the enemys from new positions.

Its why I reckon COH added more to the RTS genre than most other games in the last few years. Its not perfect and still has several issues (like balance, useless units etc) It just makes me loose interest in other RTS games that revert back to the same old system we have seen so often and that I've grown extremely bored off.

So I strongly dispute thelordofchesse assumption that COH is not innovative. Its the most innovative RTS in years.

Seifer

thelordofcheese wrote:

My point is stop pretending that CoH is new and innovative when it's not.

I'm not pretending anything. Quite simply if you don't think CoH is innovative and as stated in another thread you don't think Portal is then you should perhaps look up the word innovative.
Have a read of Azza's post, read all the reviews of both games online and realise that while you may not like these games they are innovative, great games in the eyes of the extreme majority.

mayordenis

Ciaran500 wrote: »

So its going to be the benchmark for the next 10 years while not changing much from a 10 year old RTS?

Yep - it's exactly what I mean - regardless of what the have or have not changed it will be THE competitive RTS of choice for years to come, And while keeping it simple it's not just a lick of paint there are changed just they aren't a complete overhaul the game will still have the simplistic feel and new players will be able to get into it easily but will have to be korean to master it.
I honestly believe Starcraft 1 would be played by players for a long time to come if they simply updated it graphically and just moderned it up a notch.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Was it just me or were the protoss a little overpowered? I guess that they were just the race with the most work done on them for the build at the WWI but everyone seemed to be playing them, and the poor zerg/terran players seemed to get raped all the time.

Just wondering am i right or am i imagining things again....

The build for the LAN games was were complete feeling (I know it wasn't compelete but much more than the solo campaigns) but from the play I got it was actually quite balanced I think if protoss are given time to create certain units you'll be completely crushed but the zerg can start harrasing so quick, I think it'll really accomadate the differing play styles, but maybe it's me who is imagining things :P

thelordofcheese

Seifer wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything. Quite simply if you don't think CoH is innovative and as stated in another thread you don't think Portal is then you should perhaps look up the word innovative.

I'm well aware of what that word means. My standards just aren't as low as most peoples.

Seifer wrote: »

Have a read of Azza's post, read all the reviews of both games online and realise that while you may not like these games they are innovative, great games in the eyes of the extreme majority.

I have and i don't agree. Your Argumentum ad populum means nothing to me. I maintain that CoH, while a fine game is nowhere near as innovative as everyone makes out.
It has taken some features from other games, like cover and while Azza is right in that the micro is slightly different it's nothing new. Starcraft players (and WC3 players) have been managing their units in this manner for years now.

thelordofcheese

mayordenis wrote: »

The build for the LAN games was were complete feeling (I know it wasn't compelete but much more than the solo campaigns) but from the play I got it was actually quite balanced I think if protoss are given time to create certain units you'll be completely crushed but the zerg can start harrasing so quick, I think it'll really accomadate the differing play styles, but maybe it's me who is imagining things :P

yeah, I got mothershipped once, it hurt.

mayordenis

yea everytime I played I went random - got only zerg and protoss though,
won more with the zerg they suited me with constant harrassment thing but I did make a mothership and it was very lol.

seraphimvc

just a matter of fact that people dont like starcraft/warcraft in general :Dfor myself they are the 'real' RTS,replay and replay again,the balance system make you never stop trying if you can beat the opponent next time!and Red alert of course...my first ever RTS:)

@Azza:

and i thought starcraft invented 'micro' controlling in RTS,warcraft3 brings a new level of micro game play in 2003 :O if CoH is that good i will give it a try then!

uberpixie

Azza wrote: »

Company of Heroes added much more than just a cover system although it plays an important part. For example if you charge an enemy unit head on thats in cover even with a unit thats better at close range fighting you may take too much damage for your units to be effective when they finally close up on the enemy. But if you advance using cover they will have enough strength to beat the enemy unit. COH moved away from the macro RTS type of games and placed a greater emphasis on microing your unts and the use of combined arms. It simply was not a case of x number of units type A beating x number of unit type B you had to use your units properly to achieve victory. You have to combine units to achieve goals. For example positioning your anti tank units to the rear of enemy armour while he is ditracted with your own amour so you can hit his weak spot. Kiting enemy troops with armoured vehicles. Positioning mines that criple enemy vehicles that otherwise would be too fast to hunt down on foot. Microing your tanks to keep its front armour facing towards the enemy. For example your MG is busying pinning enemy troops from a building but the enemy is trying to flank and nade it as you franticly try to get the unit out of a building. The need to reposition troops,counter-sniping/mortoring . Basically the game places its emphasis on tactics rather than strategy. You spend less time in your base and more time commanding your troops. You do have less units under your control (but I don't consider the number to be small) but you have a greater degree of control and abilitys. Each unit lost hurts way more than a single unit lost in most other RTS games. Base rushing while possible is not encouraged in this game something I consider refreshing as well.

2 major steps foward this game has made is strategic points that cut off enemys from there supplys is brillaint gameplay concept and I have not seen this done in other rts games. Secondly the destructable eviroment also adds to the options as you can break threw walls and hedgerows to attack the enemys from new positions.

Its why I reckon COH added more to the RTS genre than most other games in the last few years. Its not perfect and still has several issues (like balance, useless units etc) It just makes me loose interest in other RTS games that revert back to the same old system we have seen so often and that I've grown extremely bored off.

So I strongly dispute thelordofchesse assumption that COH is not innovative. Its the most innovative RTS in years.

Ah most of these features were in close combat II and III 10 years ago....

*proper line of sight system with indirect fire possibly but much less acurate

*Better chance of killing tanks hitting them from the rear where armour was weaker....

*Men died wholesale if you charged down a machine gun nest head on with proper suppression fire and smoke...Necessary to use cover, suppression fire and flanking to win

*Tell an assault team to "move fast" into a building they would use explosives, blow a hole in the wall and engage the enemy in hand to hand...

*standard troops will nade out a building before they enter it if they still have nades and didn't run out...

*Big variety of vehicles and troops, flame tranks, flame half tracks, tank destroyers etc....

*need to use proper stratergy and suppression, combining armour attacks with infantry on the ground.... Quickest way to lose a tank is to drive one down an alley way with no men supporting it.

*cover system, big difference between ****ty wooden buildings and propery stone buildings or hiding in a hedge... you can spend an hour trying to dig a group of men out of a stone building, if you don't have a flame tank that is :-)

*ability to sneak troops

*limited ammo, your men can run out of bullets....

*your men do not exactly do what you order them to do, if they are scared they fight less effectively and may even surrender

*Also Close Combat never had a huge sign over magical strategic points in the game, you knew from experience and playing the game how to effectively hold a position and which buildings/holes in the ground,hedge,wall were more important to hold. Most importantly you learned when to retreat and fall back to lead the enemy into an ambush.

There is nothing important in COH that was not done in Closed Combat II/III.(build a bridge and get over it)
The only difference in COH is a much more mainstream game.
There is no major innovation to speak of. But hey good games don't have to do something first to be good, just tie a lot of previous ideas found in other games together well and do it right?;)

COH is def a change from the RTS norm for the last few years which is nice.

The one thing that really impressed me about COH was that Relic made it at rougly the same time as Dawn of War and both games, while similar, feel very different when playing them and have a different balance.

Go play Close Combat 2, it's free on abandonware and it still holds up to this day.

Sephiroth_dude

on play.com they have a release date of 26/9/08,surely thats bull**** is it?