Spring RTS Engine

Licho wrote:It costs 60Ôé¼ to download - gimme a break, thats 80$..
I will wait until price is reasonable.
Last game I purchased was mass effect 2 - it now costs 20Ôé¼ too.

Really? It's 40Ôé¼ in the stores I checked.

I'm not really interested though, never got into SC1.

Licho wrote:It costs 60Ôé¼ to download - gimme a break, thats 80$..
I will wait until price is reasonable.
Last game I purchased was mass effect 2 - it now costs 20Ôé¼ too.

My point exactly.
Another thing is that people here seem to be judging things in a strange way.
If the first sc2 title has a huge single player than does it matter its only one of 3?
The point is will it have enough content to justify its cost,like any other game,whether its part of a trilogy or a stand alone.
I never particularly liked rts campaigns so for me its definitely not worth it but for those that do like single player in RTS it probably will be.

Hadn't even started the first mission before I encountered a serious bug. With the Starcraft II audio options set to 5.1 surround sound, the tutorial instructions don't play at all. Lips moving, but no sound coming out (background music and other effects were working, though). Fortunately I could just switch the game back to stereo and everything seemed to get fixed.

Now that I think about it, how would a top-down game like Starcraft even use surround sound? Stereo's probably all you need.

Anyone playing through the campaign yet? Dunno if I'll bother buying until the expansions come out. Even SC1/Brood Wars I couldn't play through linearly, because I got bored of each faction after about 4 to 5 missions. I doubt 30 all-Terrain missions will keep me interested.

The trailer looked pretty awesome, brought back some old memories, although the music near the end sounded way too familiar.

yeah D:

That piece is going to go the same way as the Requiem for a Dream theme.

Hobo Joe wrote:

Erom wrote: Single player campaign = worth every penny.

You payed $60 for a third of it fyi, rest doesn't come out for years

I knew what I was buying. Would be a solid buy at twice the price (Ok, not really, and I would have preferred $50 as a price point. $60 is tolerable.) Seriously, it's SO GOOD though.

1) Meta-mission resource/research structure and branching storyline are both pretty solid.
2) Approximately the same number of missions as the original game.*
3) Pretty happy with the level design. Besides the basic RTS missions, you also have:
- an AOS/DOTA style mission
- a Single hero dungeon style mission
- Whatever the hell Zeratul lvl2 was. (Kind of like dota but you control the creeps, and the hero keeps re-spawning and attacking you)
- Zombie swarm level with day/night cycle
- superweapon micro level (very much like the last imperial guard mission in Winter Assault)

I'm only like half-way through.

I'll be honest. Multiplayer is fun and I'm going to spend some time there, but I buy these games for the campaign. After all, if all I wanted was solid multiplayer I'd fire up a Spring game.

*Seriously, this one bugs me. How can you claim it "splits the game into three parts" when each one is the same length as starcraft 1 or brood war?

No interest.

does it reflect 7 years of development; thats my big question

the best thing about that trailer are the videos that youtube suggests are related, like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiSaPg6Y ... 2&kw=ghost

I tested the warez version but im behind a shitty office pc without a gfx card so it runs at 10fps.
From what I have seen its very story driven.

Otherside wrote:

Gota wrote:Only getting after price reduction if at all.

HF waiting 2 years or so till the next part is released.

Seriously it gets on my balls how games like this never drop in price.

COD4 it was the same for 1-2 years

SC2 shouldnt be that expensive because its only 1 campaign and the price should be accordingly.
30Ôé¼ = 39$ would be ok for this but not more.

They probably plan to release 2 more campaigns as full titles and somehow you will need them for multiplayer.

@ Erom

Tried to post this earlier, but I think something eated it.

The problem with the 3-part game is that it's too long to get to the next faction. Yes, a game can be too long, if the gameplay doesn't keep it fresh. You know what would keep the gameplay fresh? Getting to play as a different faction. I don't want to wade through 50 hours of gameplay before I get to even try anything other than the same list of Terran units. And you know that the campaign is going to end on a big cliffhanger, so if you're playing for plot you're gonna get jerked around.

KaiserJ wrote:does it reflect 7 years of development; thats my big question

Judging by my experience in the beta, no. Looked like about 1 year. No new innovations or major changes, just a graphics overhaul and slight changes to the interface and slight balance changes. It looks, feels, and plays exactly like the first game.

I've already watched hundreds of hours of SC2 gameplay in video from the beta, so I figured I owed blizzard. I don't plan on playing the game as much as I will follow the competitive scene though. I have no delusions that I'll be able to reach any level of significance.

Still, if someone wants to play with me, let me know :)

Is it just me, or does Starcraft II's macro feel like it takes a lot more micro than the previous game? As I play Starcraft II I'm reminded of why I loved TA so much in the first place... Instead of clicking "Build Marine" every 30 seconds for the entire game, I could just put factory on repeat.

I love the interactive briefing screens in the bar...pretty atypical for an rts.

RogerN wrote:Is it just me, or does Starcraft II's macro feel like it takes a lot more micro than the previous game? As I play Starcraft II I'm reminded of why I loved TA so much in the first place... Instead of clicking "Build Marine" every 30 seconds for the entire game, I could just put factory on repeat.

Well you can queue stuff up in SC too... But just ignoring your econ is a bad way to play in either game.

And pretty surely its just you, SCBW macro is much more mechanically demanding

Hobo Joe wrote:No new innovations or major changes, just a graphics overhaul and slight changes to the interface and slight balance changes. It looks, feels, and plays exactly like the first game.

oh god its like the tara ried botox.

"lets improve something mediocre by making it look better even though its actual quality is based on something different"

damned corporations.

Pxtl wrote:@ Erom

Tried to post this earlier, but I think something eated it.

The problem with the 3-part game is that it's too long to get to the next faction. Yes, a game can be too long, if the gameplay doesn't keep it fresh. You know what would keep the gameplay fresh? Getting to play as a different faction. I don't want to wade through 50 hours of gameplay before I get to even try anything other than the same list of Terran units. And you know that the campaign is going to end on a big cliffhanger, so if you're playing for plot you're gonna get jerked around.

Good point. First really logical answer I've gotten on this. I can see it as particularly annoying if you don't like Terran and wanted one of the other races. Me, I can't STAND Zerg, so I probably won't like the zerg campaign as much. Though the plotline is moving in interesting directions there.

For me, it's not really about the specific races, it's about figuring out the puzzles that the level designers created, so more levels = always better so long as the levels are well designed (and so far they have been very well designed).

KaiserJ wrote:

Hobo Joe wrote:No new innovations or major changes, just a graphics overhaul and slight changes to the interface and slight balance changes. It looks, feels, and plays exactly like the first game.

oh god its like the tara ried botox.

"lets improve something mediocre by making it look better even though its actual quality is based on something different"

damned corporations.

Would you say the same thing when someone comes up with a really polished, well-balanced and good-looking, TA-style game here?

heh. i don't think of TA as mediocre

and i wouldnt compare a hobbyist project like a spring game to a massive corporate effort like sc2

realistically it would be hard for a game to be as bad as tara reid.

i dunno, i guess the micro-intensive nature of starcraft feels when i play it like a drawback rather than a feature; im too used to all of the bells and whistles of spring; gadgets that allow me to spend my time micro-ing other things than groups of 12 units at a time... tactical zoom... lots of small things that add up when you consider them in their entirety.

however, if someone remade TA unit-by-unit copying its gameplay almost exactly, then i might raise an eyebrow... why spend all that effort and in the end offer very little in the way of "new" is very puzzling to me

Playing this a lot, about 45 ladder games, 10 customs games, 1 tournament and most of the single player "challenges" so far. Enjoying it a lot and I haven't touched the campaign yet.