StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Flagg wrote:This is like pre-alpha, so I wouldn't exactly bitch and moan about the graphics at this point.

Hardly a bitch and moan. CNC3 looks great. Just... this looks identical. I mean the styles, the colors, the shading, the beams, and the fact that it looks like from those angles that the Terran Dominion/whoever are fighting the Aeon Illuminate. ;P

I don't know why people are surprised that it's basically going to be StarCraft +1. This is what Blizzard does - they take an existing game genre (in this case the RTS) and make the most polished example of it they can do while taking minimal risks. The reason this looks so much like StarCraft is simply because the RTS genre hasn't added very much to its repertoire since StarCraft was released.

Seriously - what new popular features can they take from other current RTS games that StarCraft didn't have? Infantry come in squads? Some lame 'campaign map' that guts any possibility of a well connected story? You can zoom out, like, way far? Is that what the RTS genre has accomplished in a decade?

I won't complain either - I have a feeling that if Blizzard ever did try to make some innovative genre re-defining game they would fall flat on their faces and it would end up never seeing the light of day. I'm certain this game will be fun to play and packed with character and huge production values, it will just be very similar to the fun I've enjoyed before.

I don't think we're surprised, I just think we're disappointed. Those screens were about as underwhelming as I could expect. The protoss don't look at all right. I hope they're just, like, not fully fancy textured. The terrans are all bland too. I'm going work on the assumption that this is basically such an alpha that it bears little to no resemblence to what the final product will be. They can still deliver a fun game like this, but it just seems so static. Not the kind of cinematic brutality we got from Dawn of War, the massive epic conflicts of supreme commander, or even the crisp, low-end compatibility of C&C3.

So I'm not saying it's going to be bad, I'm just saying right now all anyone seems to be saying in favor of it is "I liked SC1 so this will be more of the same, and I liked that" which I agree with and it's why I wanted C&C3 and liked it. More of the same, but pretty and new and slick, is good. Let's give starcraft some time to get it's shine.

When you're onto a good thing...

New engine, prettier graphics, exactly the same gameplay!

Blizzard have never been innovative. Don't know what everyone was expecting.

Blizzard has officially announced that Starcraft 2 will be their next game.

After looking at screenshots here, all I can say is that it looks fucking awesome.

I'll admit it, I do think that the artwork is impressive but, the fact that it is "Starcraft" makes it to good to be true.

Thread title updated since game has gone offical.

I'm holding judgment until I get a Beta key or a demo.

A gameplay video will be available tomorrow on the official site.

Who's looking forward to Starcraft, once again, pressing 'pause' on RTS development?

Stark wrote:Who's looking forward to Starcraft, once again, pressing 'pause' on RTS development?

Yes. That is the first thing that came to mind when the faq said Blizzard does not know when it will be released. They could at least give us an estimate for when it will be released.

Blizzard wrote:When is the game coming out?

Source
At this point, it's too early to provide an initial estimate on the release date. As with all Blizzard games, we will take as much time as needed to ensure the game is as fun, balanced, and polished as possible.

I laughed when I read that. Starcraft:Ghost anyone? However, if there is a massive delay in the game or it is eventually abandoned, Blizzard will lose half if not more of their following. My guess, anyways.

JLTucker wrote:Yes. That is the first thing that came to mind when the faq said Blizzard does not know when it will be released. They could at least give us an estimate for when it will be released.

Oh no, I mean if Starcraft 2 is successful it'll mean another five years of unimaginative knockoffs and the failure of anything interesting in the genre, just like last time. Remember all the 'like Starcraft, but in space/underground/with magic/etc games? While far better or more interesting RTS's were released, they were eclipsed by Starcraft. Only relatively recently have more 'interesting' RTS's become popular again (largely due to DoW, I think) and now we're going to be put right back where we were in 2000.

Unless Blizzard does something interesting. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and actually *thank* them for not needlessly redesigning everything just for a sequel? That's happened to many franchises, and it's usually not for the better. Maybe hidden under all that backwards derivative nonsense is *interesting* things?

Give me Dawn of War 2.

I have been eagerly waiting for Starcraft 2, a sequel to the game that got me interested in RTS in the first place. But after playing DOW, DOW: Winter Assault and especially DOW: Dark Crusade I don't know anymore.
I hope they have some new units for Zerg, always my favorite race, and especially Protoss who, after playing with Eldar, don't look so fancy to me anymore.

EDIT: Looking at the screens the terrain really has nothing on DoW: Dark Crusade landscape and looks really unrealistic almost if they intentionally replicated StarCraft 1 look.

Cautiously optimistic at this point, I would definitly say it's too early to pass judgement with only a few screenies from the alpha-version of this game.

Here's hoping we get Starcraft 2 and not Starcraft 1 v.2

I say, why fix what's not broken. If Starcraft is still being played then obviously it has elements people like. Rock paper sissor gameplay, clickfest.

Aaron Ash wrote:The reason this looks so much like StarCraft is simply because the RTS genre hasn't added very much to its repertoire since StarCraft was released.

Use the search function and look at the last time someone tried to say Starcraft was the be all and end all of strategy games. You're not saying exactly the same thing, but almost as bad Aaron. Terrain, graphics, deployment (soon to come World in Conflict which doesn't have base building at all), special boosts and weapons (C&C), heroes (WC3), everything has advanced.

And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count. Supreme Commander looks better, why doesn't that count.

Hell, it's about time.

The cinematic trailer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DEocxZug3xE

Didn't Duke Nukem Forever have a cinematic trailer at one point? I'll be impressed when they actually release some in-game footage.

Or you could watch it in better quality.

JLTucker wrote:Or you could watch it in better quality.

They want you to download an executable in order to watch their .avi trailer. Fuck that shit.

To be quite frank, the most impressive thing that I've seen so far in the batch of announcement material is the concept artwork. The graphics of the screenshots are nice-looking to be sure, and I got a bit of a "OMG, its Starcraft" tingle while watching the cinematic trailer, but so far, I am unimpressed by the look of the gameplay. It looks exactly like the first game; I don't particularly mind if a game doesn't go far from its roots (case in point, Halo 3), but I do expect a bit of innovation and modification beyond a graphical update. Hell, it looks like they've even replicated the rather silly-looking space platform map type without improvement beyond adding a planet to the starfield background.

Of course, I will reserve final judgement until more material is released. Besides, I'm a sucker for the Protoss, and I'm glad to see them back.

brianeyci wrote:
And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count. Supreme Commander looks better, why doesn't that count.

If the gameplay mechanics are horrible, boring or otherwise completely unbalanced, then pretty graphics aren't going to help for jack. See the PS3.

Aaron Ash wrote: Seriously - what new popular features can they take from other current RTS games that StarCraft didn't have? Infantry come in squads? Some lame 'campaign map' that guts any possibility of a well connected story? You can zoom out, like, way far? Is that what the RTS genre has accomplished in a decade?

Nah, there's more.

Warcraft 3 introduced "hero units".

Some lame game about big robots that can take parts off their defeated enemies had a "three layer" game world - the sky, the ground, and underground. Oh yeah, and the whole "customize your big robot with parts, and be able to rip parts off your defeated enemies" thing.

Homeworld was a popularized space combat RTS. There have been a bunch of other obscure (and shitty) ones since then.

Earth 2160: The Moon Project actually had ammunition as a factor: tanks could run out of ammo and need to be resupplied. I guess that wasn't as awesome as some people think or else we might have seen that feature take off in other games.

Some games implemented a projectile-based damage system, rather than a "computer rolls dice and decides your unit will in fact be hit" or a "units never miss" system. This is really more a preference thing, since the technology to allow a unit to get out of the way of an incoming artillery round is pretty simple these days.

Dawn of War implemented control points on the map which, depending on the game objectives set, can be crucial or necessary in determining victory. I thought that was an interesting development of RTS gameplay beyond the usual "annihilate all enemy structures" objective.

There have been quite a lot of gimmicks introduced since Starcraft. However, I think it's important to note that you can only do so much within the RTS genre: it's really basically about building units and throwing them at the enemy. Everything else is a twist (or, depending on your point of view, a gimmick ) tacked on top of that.


(But hey, if it's so easy to come up with something new and fresh and exciting and oh my god INNOVATIVE!!!! then why don't you start a thread and throw up some of your revolutionary ideas for us to see?)

Dawn of War implemented control points on the map which, depending on the game objectives set, can be crucial or necessary in determining victory. I thought that was an interesting development of RTS gameplay beyond the usual "annihilate all enemy structures" objective.

Ground control 2 did it first, by a few months. Also, ground control 1 multiplayer had control zones.

The massively improved waypoint systems are certainly tremendous progress.

In fairness, we probably can't tell either way if SC2 has such a thing.

General Zod wrote:If the gameplay mechanics are horrible, boring or otherwise completely unbalanced, then pretty graphics aren't going to help for jack. See the PS3.

Unless someone is making the case that RTS games in general are horrible, boring and completely unbalanced, there's no point ignoring graphical developments in the entire RTS genre. You know, I like the incredible looking nukes in the World in Conflict Trailer, I like how RTS games are fully three dimensional these days unlike Starcraft and I like the C&C games superweapon effects.

I'm tired of this meme that you can make a bad looking game that has good gameplay and it rules. I cannot go back to playing Liero, I cannot go back to playing Pong, I cannot go back to playing older games with terrible graphics and great gameplay. I want eye candy, is there something wrong with that. If someone is going to make a wide-sweeping generalization like RTS games haven't developed in a decade it just sounds as if he hates the RTS genre entirely, and if so why not play an entirely different kind of game. There's only so many times you can reinvent the wheel.

Uraniun235 wrote:(But hey, if it's so easy to come up with something new and fresh and exciting and oh my god INNOVATIVE!!!! then why don't you start a thread and throw up some of your revolutionary ideas for us to see?)

Heh heh I would like to see that.