Or you could play the Campain...
EDIT: dosn't that trailer feel like it should be played with Veitnam era music? That just fits better in my mind.
Starcraft 2 announced
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
To be fair... we're talking about a company who successfully developed a game where 3 massively different races are balanced perfectly against each other, without invalidating any unit in the entire game. You can't count any of blizzard's success in game development as just luck, it's all brilliance and intelligent game development. Ultimately the success of TA was alot of luck, and SupComm couldn't get as lucky. Chris Tailor's formula's were wrong.NOiZE wrote:stracraft 2 is gonna beat everything lolol just like supcom did
Is SC2 going to beat out every other game ever and be the ultimate game that every gamer will love equally and totally? Nah, but it's going to be hella popular, and it's going to be very well developed. Blizzard does not fail. Period.
It's the only sure thing in the entirety of the gaming industry. Blizzards next game will always be good.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
I'm not sure, Blizzard never fails sure, but this has me worried:
IE, a guy known for many but mediocre games."Morhaime [Blizzards boss/founder] then introduces the lead designer of the project to discuss it--none other than former EALA designer Dustin Browder (who worked previously on The Battle for Middle-earth and Command & Conquer series)"
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
I guess it all depends on Blizzard's objectives.
If Blizzard wants to keep its reputation for "good" games alive, then it develops a "good" SC2. This is the plan aiming at the long-term.
If Blizzard wants to take a short term profit and "cash in" on its reputation, then it takes SC and adds a new unit to each side and sells it as SC2.
Either way, Blizzard makes fucktons of money. In the first scenario it spends a lot on development; in the second it doesn't. The fact is, Blizzard could put a blank CD in a box and label it SC2 and it would outsell pretty much every other strategy game ever made. But then they wouldn't be able to do that next time because customers would actually demand proof of a quality product before they bought it.
If Blizzard wants to keep its reputation for "good" games alive, then it develops a "good" SC2. This is the plan aiming at the long-term.
If Blizzard wants to take a short term profit and "cash in" on its reputation, then it takes SC and adds a new unit to each side and sells it as SC2.
Either way, Blizzard makes fucktons of money. In the first scenario it spends a lot on development; in the second it doesn't. The fact is, Blizzard could put a blank CD in a box and label it SC2 and it would outsell pretty much every other strategy game ever made. But then they wouldn't be able to do that next time because customers would actually demand proof of a quality product before they bought it.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
For the people asking "How do you know it's the WC3 engine toned up"
Mostly because ANY games company, when producing a game, produces a tech demo to take to a publisher, or the screaming raving korean fanboies, out of parts to hand. Hence, the WC3 engine is avalible, runs RTS okay, so lets see if we can't stick starcrafty stuff inz it.
Mostly because ANY games company, when producing a game, produces a tech demo to take to a publisher, or the screaming raving korean fanboies, out of parts to hand. Hence, the WC3 engine is avalible, runs RTS okay, so lets see if we can't stick starcrafty stuff inz it.
I think alot of Starcrafts "brilliant" balance and such hinged not on some awesome forumla of other stuff, but more on the fact that each of the 3 Different sides had about 10 combat units a piece if even.. so when we compare the difference between SC and TA were looking at maybe 60 total units including buildings vs 250 total units including buildings.. thats alot more to fiddle fart around with, its simple less is more here.. SC went with fewer units which is tighter/easier to balance, whereas chris taylor went with Many units, much more difficult to balance..
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
This is true, but then again, in terms of starcraft 3, blizzard has a virtually infinite amount of funds to make whatever they want to happen with the game reality, and they have a virtually infinite amount of time, since they haven't announced a release date. They also have probably the best play testing squad for any development studio ever, it consists of many of the best star craft players in the world.Fanger wrote:I think alot of Starcrafts "brilliant" balance and such hinged not on some awesome forumla of other stuff, but more on the fact that each of the 3 Different sides had about 10 combat units a piece if even.. so when we compare the difference between SC and TA were looking at maybe 60 total units including buildings vs 250 total units including buildings.. thats alot more to fiddle fart around with, its simple less is more here.. SC went with fewer units which is tighter/easier to balance, whereas chris taylor went with Many units, much more difficult to balance..
While starcraft may have had technical size restrictions and what not, it did have more units then warcraft per race, and it did play incredibly well. In terms of the size of a project in development starcraft 2 will have alot more invested into it. If blizzard were to choose to do so I think they could make pretty much any game solid and hella fun with their current studios and monetary backing.
Comparing CT and supcomm to blizzard and SC2 is asking who can make a better ship? A few dozen carpenters or the worlds top 1000 engineers with an infinite budget.
thats what starcraft looked like early in development:
if i remember, its the wc2 engine.
this picture of a beta is also fun:
notice how the Dragoons are called Templers.
also the engine has changed it still looks quite different from the finished version.
for example: different sides
if you look at replays you can see how players finish building ie a siege-tank just-in-time when enemy go up the ramp to the base.
timing is very important.
most RTS just balance "10 X-units beat 3 Y-units."
and units have upgrades.
ie the terran Wraith (fighter spaceship)
you can upgrade its cloaking, its amor and its fire power.
so Starcraft's Wraith = TA's level 1 + level 2 fighter + Brawler + Gunship.
many of the (annoying) bugs of Starcrafts interface actually add to the balance. imagine you could micro Dragooners just as easily as Marines.
or if you could just select 100 Zerlings and a-click them into the enemy army.
You actually have to play the game instead of just watching battles.
And while doing all this fanca micro stuff you have to thing about expanding your base. But not using cheap constructions units that build even cheaper mex where you dont really notice the loose but just rebuild it. You have to thing where to expand to, not just "into the general direction of the enemy and then i build a guardian."
hopefully they still have stimpacks :)
SC <-> SC2 might be like Counterstrike 1.6 <-> Counterstrike:Source.
I hardly notice a difference because I dont play it much but some players might say "oooh dont you notice the aiming is ALL different?" or " ololol the ct's way to bombspot A on de_dust is way longer now, thats really imba"
if i remember, its the wc2 engine.
this picture of a beta is also fun:
notice how the Dragoons are called Templers.
also the engine has changed it still looks quite different from the finished version.
I'd say the balance of SC is just as complex as some 250-units game.I think alot of Starcrafts "brilliant" balance and such hinged not on some awesome forumla of other stuff, but more on the fact that each of the 3 Different sides had about 10 combat units a piece if even.. so when we compare the difference between SC and TA were looking at maybe 60 total units including buildings vs 250 total units including buildings
for example: different sides
if you look at replays you can see how players finish building ie a siege-tank just-in-time when enemy go up the ramp to the base.
timing is very important.
most RTS just balance "10 X-units beat 3 Y-units."
and units have upgrades.
ie the terran Wraith (fighter spaceship)
you can upgrade its cloaking, its amor and its fire power.
so Starcraft's Wraith = TA's level 1 + level 2 fighter + Brawler + Gunship.
many of the (annoying) bugs of Starcrafts interface actually add to the balance. imagine you could micro Dragooners just as easily as Marines.
or if you could just select 100 Zerlings and a-click them into the enemy army.
You actually have to play the game instead of just watching battles.
And while doing all this fanca micro stuff you have to thing about expanding your base. But not using cheap constructions units that build even cheaper mex where you dont really notice the loose but just rebuild it. You have to thing where to expand to, not just "into the general direction of the enemy and then i build a guardian."
yea, noticed that too and dont really like that.Terrans look even more like WH40k space marines now.
hopefully they still have stimpacks :)
SC <-> SC2 might be like Counterstrike 1.6 <-> Counterstrike:Source.
I hardly notice a difference because I dont play it much but some players might say "oooh dont you notice the aiming is ALL different?" or " ololol the ct's way to bombspot A on de_dust is way longer now, thats really imba"