Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post by Caydr »

Had a couple paragraphs here explaining my first point in more detail, but I think everyone's already familiar with the feeling of "too high system requirements" some feel when talking about SupCom, so just imagine that but for SC2, which is based on a game whose system requirements basically don't exist. If you have a computer, it can play starcraft flawlessly.

So, there's that part. The system requirements. Now I'll get to the less serious stuff...

1) barracks - build more than 5 units at a time or ELSE
2) formations - an ancient feature that every modern RTS has
3) story - SC unlike so many RTS games actually has a story, so SC2 will be expected to have one that's comparable
4) less ghey sense of scale - I don't want SupCom-style scale, but at least let's not have battlecruisers that are the size of a tank anymore
5) siege tanks - If SC2 doesn't have siege tanks, it's not SC
6) more sense of power from units - this goes with the scale part kind of. In the cutscenes, battlecruisers are huge and (in BW intro) actually implied to be capable of singlehandedly stopping an army. That'll never happen in SC, but I'd like stuff to feel more powerful, less like some kind of cheap arcade game
7) perfect multiplayer - and it must be perfect on launch
8) superior to SC in significant ways - or else people will just play SC
9) more realistic story - having a race's homeworld wiped out should be a significant concern, not a minor inconvenience... "hey, tarsonis is gone." "really? hey look, a zergling eating me. Damn that hurts. Ouch."
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

Anyone else think they are going to pull an inverse Arthas and have Kerrigan become good again?
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

Kerrigan is hawt, even with horn-hair and blood. I could do without the moles and weird skin though.

edit: on second thought, the horn-hair should really be worn in a ponytail or something, it's a little creepy.
User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4383
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Post by Peet »

Caydr wrote:Kerrigan is hawt, especially with horn-hair and blood.
Fixed :D
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

True dat. Though, I am always annoyed that on the box of Brood war, she looks very hawt...but in the game, she still has the old, gross Frekinstine's Monster face thing that I do not like.

And she's got those claw/wing things. Those are cool too.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post by Sleksa »

Caydr wrote:Had a couple paragraphs here explaining my first point in more detail, but I think everyone's already familiar with the feeling of "too high system requirements" some feel when talking about SupCom, so just imagine that but for SC2, which is based on a game whose system requirements basically don't exist. If you have a computer, it can play starcraft flawlessly.

So, there's that part. The system requirements. Now I'll get to the less serious stuff...

1) barracks - build more than 5 units at a time or ELSE
2) formations - an ancient feature that every modern RTS has
3) story - SC unlike so many RTS games actually has a story, so SC2 will be expected to have one that's comparable
4) less ghey sense of scale - I don't want SupCom-style scale, but at least let's not have battlecruisers that are the size of a tank anymore
5) siege tanks - If SC2 doesn't have siege tanks, it's not SC
6) more sense of power from units - this goes with the scale part kind of. In the cutscenes, battlecruisers are huge and (in BW intro) actually implied to be capable of singlehandedly stopping an army. That'll never happen in SC, but I'd like stuff to feel more powerful, less like some kind of cheap arcade game
7) perfect multiplayer - and it must be perfect on launch
8) superior to SC in significant ways - or else people will just play SC
9) more realistic story - having a race's homeworld wiped out should be a significant concern, not a minor inconvenience... "hey, tarsonis is gone." "really? hey look, a zergling eating me. Damn that hurts. Ouch."


1) lulz
2) i wont miss them if they get left behind
3) i think we can trust blizzard on making a story for its game
4) yay lets make a good sense of scale and make a battlecruiser block the whole map by its size or reduce marines to the size of 2 pixels
5) siege tanks have been confirmed to be there, altho they look really retarded in the siege mode IMO
6) i dont know what you mean by this
7) i think we can trust blizzard again with this
8) oh yeah, like people didnt start playing starcraft from warcraft 2 or wc3 from starfraft(atleast in europe ~~)
9) i c u have studied your homework
User avatar
SwiftSpear
Classic Community Lead
Posts: 7287
Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29

Post by SwiftSpear »

Christ Caydr, you really don't understand starcraft at all, do you...

All those features are neat in context to other RTS games, but they REALLY aren't the point of starcraft.
User avatar
Zpock
Posts: 1218
Joined: 16 Sep 2004, 23:20

Post by Zpock »

Yeah half what's suggested here would have starcraft fans pulling their hair.

1. There's a huge dilemma with the UI. All the arcane stuff like how building stuff is done, the unit selection limit, manual spellcasting and all that stuff is a huge part of making starcraft what it is. Yet it would be a bold move indeed to step down from WC3 and have the same "gimped" UI as original starcraft. Blizzard is trying to cope with this by adding in more things to do like more spells abilities and stuff to try and make the game as intense at the original but with a more modern interface.

2. Formations where in WC3 and there they work much better then most other games. It's similar to point 1, it probably will be in starcraft2, regrettably.

3. I don't think we'll have problems here.

4. See sleksas post above. Doing this is really not in the spirit of starcraft, starcraft isn't trying to have realistic graphics.

5. They are in but everyone and their dog agrees they look like shit.

6. There is the mothership, a unit many consider a pretty bad idea for several reasons, but agree it is still kind of cool.

7. What do you expect? The company who runs WOW and battlenet...
Cross your fingers for some persistent mega galactic war.. I always do.

8. Starcraft will be seen as superior in some regards no matter what. Just from being an old game it has certain things that are not just gonna happen in any new games, like the crappy/genious ui. Not to mention it was right at the end of the 2d era, so oldschool 2d ggraphics as good as they get. And it has a lot of tradition and stuff backing it up. It's also very possible that all the progaming koreans and stuff might just continue with starcraft1 as usual.

9. No thanks. It's perfect the way it is.

But in the end, blizzard games are always lightyears ahead in polish and being genuinly proffesionally designed and made all the way trough. They make the competition look like amateurs or worse. So you don't need to worry about SC2 sucking, if it's going to be pure genious again will be interesting to see tough.
User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Post by rattle »

4) yay lets make a good sense of scale and make a battlecruiser block the whole map by its size or reduce marines to the size of 2 pixels
Yeah, let's do it. Or how about... taking spaceships out entirely? I mean, why would a huge-ass spaceship snipe a SINGLE foot soldier with it's main cannons? Spaceships are for orbital bombardements.

Also, imagine accessible buildings á la WarWind, only a good deal larger. Now that would be something new (it's been done twice already) and perhaps make the game a little bit more interesting than the very same old boring WC2/SC concept.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Post by Sleksa »

rattle wrote: . . . Or how about... taking spaceships out entirely? I mean, why would a huge-ass spaceship snipe a SINGLE foot soldier with it's main cannons? Spaceships are for orbital bombardements.

I first tried to comment this in a insultive way,

then i tried to comment it in a witty way

now im just going to say :

LoL
User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Post by rattle »

Well, the proportions of SC's units ARE retarded. It wasn't so bad in the WC series, at least there weren't any space ships. :P
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Post by Sleksa »

Yeah but at a same time theyre a irreplaceable part of sc :S
User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Post by KingRaptor »

The way the UED lost in Brood War was annoying tbh, it's like in Spring where one side has a krog and 30 Bulldogs and 75% of the map...and then gets pwned by wezel spaem ~~
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Caydr wrote:Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck
Have good gameplay instead of trying to cator for retardeds.
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Re: Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post by Sleksa »

Lolsquad_Steven wrote:
Caydr wrote:Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck
Have good gameplay instead of trying to cator for retardeds.


^^
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck

Post by Neddie »

Sleksa wrote:
Lolsquad_Steven wrote:
Caydr wrote:Starcraft II and what it must do not to suck
Have good gameplay instead of trying to cator for retardeds.


^^
Well, we can always dream.
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

I played Star Craft at the extremely unprofessional level. As long as it stays fun at that level and doesn't require extra arms to play, I'll like it. And if it has a good plot. And if Kerrigan remains strangely attractive.

Also, where are the female Protoss? Do they even exsist?

Am I creepy about wondering about that?
User avatar
TheRegisteredOne
Posts: 398
Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 21:39

Post by TheRegisteredOne »

Zoombie wrote:Also, where are the female Protoss? Do they even exsist?

Am I creepy about wondering about that?
one thing is for sure, they can't do oral
User avatar
Comp1337
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2005, 17:32

Post by Comp1337 »

TheRegisteredOne wrote:
Zoombie wrote:Also, where are the female Protoss? Do they even exsist?

Am I creepy about wondering about that?
one thing is for sure, they can't do oral
They probably have other, more obscure holes to make up for that...
User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Post by rattle »

Perhaps they're asexual or there's only one gender in the species.

Hmm GNAFOS!
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”