Apparently Starcraft 2 is coming

[Shinova]

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29004&


I abandoned Starcraft long time ago, but it should be interesting to see how Blizzard does this one, whether they actually advance or whether they prove once again that Blizzard games always pander to the lowest common denominator and succeed in somehow being two generations behind everyone else graphically AND still sell tens of times more than anyone else.

[Chris OFarrell]

Oh please, Starcraft 2 will be out on the same day as Duke Nukem Forever. Every year there is a 'news release' which points to Starcraft 2, but nothing is happening...

[JLTucker]

I am expecting this game as much as I am expecting Starcraft: Ghost

[Stormbringer]

I abandoned Starcraft long time ago, but it should be interesting to see how Blizzard does this one, whether they actually advance or whether they prove once again that Blizzard games always pander to the lowest common denominator and succeed in somehow being two generations behind everyone else graphically AND still sell tens of times more than anyone else.

Personally, I doubt we'll see Starcraft 2 any time in the near future. Blizzard has the WoW monstrosity to worry about and they're happy feeding the Beast for now. No company in it's right mind would ditch a profit-maker like WoW for no-guarantees product. No doubt that sooner or later a Starcraft 2 will actually turn up, it's Blizzards other big franchise, but nothing really says it's any more likely than other rumors.

PS: for all Blizzards graphics might not be cutting edge (I'd disagree that they're so far behind as you make it out to be) they are more than sufficient for the game play. Blizzard makes good, playable games which is why they keep pumping out successes instead of super-flop eye candy.

[Vympel]

Well, Warcraft 3 sucked ass, IMO.

[Stark]

MOST Blizzard games have sucked ass, but graphics aren't usually the big problems. Look at WoW - it looks like shit, but that isn't really an important problem. People STILL play games barely better than Diablo2 graphics-wise. It's the lowest common denominator issue that makes their games bland, unimaginative shit.

[brianeyci]

Heh heh when I was in Grade Nine which would be... hm around Starcraft's heyday, there was this guy in class who kept feeding another guy "inside info" on Starcraft 2. There was supposed to be the following. Three levels, air, ground and underground. Goliaths that could go inside bunkers. Proper scaling of units. 4x space (explore, expand, exploit exterminate like SE:III or Stars! which were the premier games of that type at the time.) And the guy just kept listening and listening, allowing the "friend" shovel shit in his mouth. The return: the sucker helped the guy in math tests, and I wouldn't be surprised if he helped the guy cheat. I wanted to tell him, but I didn't, and just laughed my ass off.

[Flagg]

Well, Warcraft 3 sucked ass, IMO.

I'll agree with that, while stipulating that I like most other Blizzard games, and am looking forward to StarCraft 2 whether it comes out any time in the next few decades or not. Warcraft is all about these massive epic battles, and these is supposedly this war going on, but you can't really tell considering the fact that you're essentially fighting what I would barely even consider skirmishes. Plus the complete lack of a meaningful navy takes out a major element from the prior games. The only things it had going for it were the great story and cutscenes along with the hero system that's now been copied in every RTS since, but it really doesn't make up for it's lack of the "war" in WarCraft.

[Stark]

I thought the WC3 hero system was totally broken. Most RPGs use a more Kohan-like 'reset xp' system in my experience.

[Flagg]

I thought the WC3 hero system was totally broken. Most RPGs use a more Kohan-like 'reset xp' system in my experience.

How was it broken?

[Stark]

They were hugely powerful and constantly improved? I recall that later patches tweaked the hero/cost/xp thing, but when I played the heroes were cheap for the power and could be resurrected with little trouble. There was almost 'no risk' to using them. They were also all over the place power-wise, like the Battle Realms heroes.

Having heroes in an RTS doesn't mean they 'copied' Blizzard.

[Flagg]

They were hugely powerful and constantly improved? I recall that later patches tweaked the hero/cost/xp thing, but when I played the heroes were cheap for the power and could be resurrected with little trouble. There was almost 'no risk' to using them. They were also all over the place power-wise, like the Battle Realms heroes.

Having heroes in an RTS doesn't mean they 'copied' Blizzard.

Yeah, from that standpoint I guess they weren't great. I'm mainly talking from a campaign viewpoint, though. I played maybe 3 skirmishes before giving up. Having heroes doesn't mean they copied Blizzard, but I'm mainly talking about the RPG heroes system alot of games used after WC3 that were clearly inspired by that game.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

Having heroes doesn't mean they copied Blizzard, but I'm mainly talking about the RPG heroes system alot of games used after WC3 that were clearly inspired by that game.

Can that gameplay element just die already? For a while it was the new "superweapon" in RTS games i.e. every game had to have them, regardless of how retarded it was. It's not so bad now, but you still come across the occasional game with them in for absolutely no reason. At least it can pseudo make sense in a fantasy setting, but there was even some random World War 2 RTS recently that had them.

[Jim Raynor]

They were hugely powerful and constantly improved? I recall that later patches tweaked the hero/cost/xp thing, but when I played the heroes were cheap for the power and could be resurrected with little trouble. There was almost 'no risk' to using them. They were also all over the place power-wise, like the Battle Realms heroes.

Having heroes in an RTS doesn't mean they 'copied' Blizzard.

I've played WC3 a lot, and I don't understand your criticism here. Hero units are powerful, but that's the whole point. There's no "risk" to building hero units, you weres supposed to build hero units to lead your armies in every game. I don't think it's broken, because heroes are available to both sides.

Even then, the heroes aren't THAT powerful. The most commonly used Human hero, the Archmage, is basically a pussy who just summons an extra, disposable unit to take up the damage early game against neutral non-player enemies, so the units you actually pay money for don't have to. Something small, but essential in the first few minutes. In all my time playing WC3, I would have to say that the regular unit choices and a player's ability to take and hold resources are what determines victory.

[Jim Raynor]

PS: for all Blizzards graphics might not be cutting edge (I'd disagree that they're so far behind as you make it out to be) they are more than sufficient for the game play. Blizzard makes good, playable games which is why they keep pumping out successes instead of super-flop eye candy.

I'm a Blizzard fan, and I agree with this. The graphics in their games haven't been cutting edge, and neither is the gameplay. What Blizzard does is produce games that are just playable and fun. Take Diablo for example. A simple click-based hack-and-slash, with enough diversity in spell and item builds so that that it takes some thinking to play. But it was fast-paced action, with swarms of enemies and lots of awesome explosions. I tried playing Neverwinter Nights once with my friends, and the slow pace and relative lack of action nearly put me to sleep. I'd take Diablo any day over that soul-consuming MMORPG crap that has dominated the rpg market in recent years.

Blizzard also puts effort into creating fictional universes and detailed stories for their games. Sure, those aren't that innovative either. Starcraft borrows heavily from Star Wars, Star Trek, Starship Troopers, Warhammer 40k, Aliens, etc. Warcraft uses many familiar fantasy cliches. What Blizzard does is to take fictional conventions and turn them on the side. In Starcraft, the humans aren't noble heroes. Most of them are fucked up fascist space hicks. Many of the supposedly wise and benevolent alien Protoss turn out to be religious fundies. The stories aren't mind-blowingly creative, but are different and interesting enough to complement the game experience. And the cinematics have usually been pretty sweet.

[Seggybop]

Starcraft 2?
I don't believe it.
I'll never believe it.
Impossible.

[bilateralrope]

From the translation they posted:

However, trustworthy information is being leaked from previous Blizzard employees, and through an acquaintance of ex-Blizzard North employees, StarCraft 2's development and its announcement at the WWI has been confirmed.

So this information seems to come from people no longer working at Blizzard, or an acquaintance of people no longer working there.

[Spyder]

Hah, alt.games.starcraft are treating this with some skepticism and I can tell you, those guys are really bored.

GosuGamers have got a thing on it.

No smoke without a fire

Whether or not these claims are true will be difficult to confirm because of the nature of the source (anonymous leak). Over the years there have been much said about the sequel - Blizzard has repeatedly mentioned that they have always been interested in "revisiting the StarCraft world". However, only recently has there been an increasing number of leaks regarding Starcraft 2, all hinting that it is indeed coming out soon. Here's the recent history:

# December 2006: An 'Unannounced project' was what Chris Sigaty, Lead Producer of WarCraft 3 (and its expansion), said he was working with when GosuGamers met up with Blizzard in our recent interview called » When Blizzard started talking. He would not comment further on what project it was.

# 8th January 2007, GosuGamers » reported about a claim that StarCraft 2 would be announced early 2007. That source also leaked a lot of other unconfirmed information to the gaming community, much which have turned out to be true.

# Only days later, 16th January 2007, at the launch of the Burning Crusade, » a Blizzard representative made further, and this time public, hints about StarCraft II.

# 9th April 2007, sources at FighterForum (» translated at TeamLiquid) claimed that information about a new race and 3D graphics being included in StarCraft 2 had leaked from the company and that a beta would be out by the end of 2007. It only contained claims for a new "Kerrigan" race and that the original units of StarCraft would be included in the sequel, but with a modification.

[Spyder]

Kotaku

It took a good day of calls and emails, but Blizzard just got back to us about the rumor floating around that Starcraft 2 will be announced next month during their World Wide Invitation in Seoul, South Korea.

According to a Korean website, StarCraft 2 is being developed in 3D with a new race and lots of changes for existing units. The site went on to say that additional details would be revealed during Blizzard's WWI on May 19th in Seoul.

When reached for comment today this was Blizzard's official response:

We do intend to announce a new product at the Worldwide Invitational next month in Korea, and we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest in getting an advance look at what that will be, but players will have to wait until May 19th to find out more. Also, we have a very strong connection with the characters and settings of StarCraft, and we do plan to revisit that universe at some point in the future, but we don't have anything new to announce in that regard at present.

So that's a yes on a StarCraft 2, eventually, and a yes to a product announcement next month. The only question now is are they one in the same. Brian Crecente

Meh, we'll see what may 19 brings.

[Darth Tanner]

If it turns out to be World of Starcraft I think I'll cry.

[Jim Raynor]

If it turns out to be World of Starcraft I think I'll cry.

So would I. WOW is the only Blizzard game I haven't bought in the last decade or so. I want them to produce fun, playable games, not time-consuming MMORPGs.

[Vympel]

World of Starcraft. Boy would that suck.

"Why won't my Godly Rail Gun of Ages drop!"

[Surlethe]

I'll believe it May 19, and even then I'll be skeptical after what happened to Ghost.

[Uraniun235]

They were hugely powerful and constantly improved? I recall that later patches tweaked the hero/cost/xp thing, but when I played the heroes were cheap for the power and could be resurrected with little trouble. There was almost 'no risk' to using them. They were also all over the place power-wise, like the Battle Realms heroes.

Having heroes in an RTS doesn't mean they 'copied' Blizzard.

Heroes were the whole point of Warcraft 3... which is why I never really cared for it.

[Gaidin]

[SC2 Announcement Rumor]
Trinket
Equip: Increases your sales of Blizzcon tickets by 1337%.