Future of Gaming

[TM-Magic]

I see blizzards announcement of their SC2 trilogy as a step into a new direction for gaming. Combine say the story and cinematics of an rpg with the gameplay of an rts and you have one hell of a game. I've read plenty of shit-talk about their steps toward this, saying it's just a scam to get us to buy more.

If you honestly believe they'd make you buy it 3 times just to get 3x the money, your being ridiculously naive. WoW alone has made them a fortune and everything they've created has been a huge success...NOT because they want to scam you and take your money. Ok, lets look at it. They designed WoW, an MMORPG, and what did they do wrong? They made it cost a monthly price...LIKE ANY OTHER MMORPG. Only because they know they're shit and know how to make a good game, they can afford to price it higher. And as supply and demand dictates, they can raise the price as long as you'll still buy it...and you did (well most of you). So now they're GREEDY because they want to make it a trilogy? WTF is wrong with you. They don't need the little extra money from a couple expansion packs, they already took all of yours with WoW. They want to expand the concept of an rts and be a little more creative.

So now the gaming industry is finally evolving from the standard...this is an rpg...this is an rts...this is a raceing game...this is a fighting game... It's lacking hardcore. Nintendo was smart in bringing the Wii into the field. They knew it was becoming silly recreating the same shit over and over again in slightly different styles. Sure the graphics aren't as good as say the PS3, but the interactiveness brings a whole new ballgame to the court. Blizzard, being smart as always, realized this too and instead of trying to dupe you like other gaming industries who give you their half-programed-highly bugged-piles of shit so that they take your money and work on the next wallet-cleaner, they strive to perfect it, as any self-respecting person/company would do.

For a high-unit/animation count game, blizzard is giving us very good graphics with extremely good gameplay and to top it off, 3x the campaigns to develop the story into a literary masterpiece, not to mention the editor which will be a wonder in and of itself. Infact, the major problem...the major thing people hate most about blizzard is how they give you a well polished, highly addictive game that you just can't wait for. They are so incredibly good at making games that you want it NOW and you fail to realize how much work and effort is being put into this thing, and if they didn't put that much into it, you wouldn't want it in the first place.


With that being said, seeing as SC2 seems more like a cross between rts and rpg by devoloping it's narrative values and extending its plot, how do you, the people, see the gaming industry in the future? Also, what would you like to see?

This is a discussion of the future of gaming, what you like in games, and/or what you would like to see in games. Please be open minded, after all, what the gaming industry lacks most is creativity.

 

[Gilles]

I thought you were going to say games were becoming more movie-like with that intro of yours. Which I would have agreed with. Games like GTAIV are getting very close to movie quality, but still aren't there. Graphics are pretty much good enough, it's just going to take a good story, and tweaking the gameplay to really add to the story. In GTA IV I found that the game and story were so long, I lost track of what was going on.

 

[Gikon]

First part summary:
Blizzard is not EA Games.

Second part summary:
The game will blow your fucking mind...

Third part summary:
SC2 will be equal if not replacing drugs on a addiction scale. (IE See south korea.)

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

I'd like to see more things like Little Big Planet which is simply amazing. BTW In my opinion the Wii promised revolution and instead delivered us Wii fit. PS3 offered amazing power and delivered fully, now we just need a game other than Little Big Planet that capitalizes on its power. BTW Little Big Planet doesn't look like much, but its physics system is DAMN good which is why it pushes the PS3's power!

 

[deathsin]

im not gonna buy any thing till warcraft 4 come's out , im sure it will

 

[Tyranid]

Hah, you calling Starcraft II the future of gaming!? Oh please it's the same exact thing as Starcraft I except a few new units and a different type of campaign system. Otherwise the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME!

With your post you are only touching the singeplayer side of games. What about multiplayer!? Multiplayer in Starcraft II is exactly the same as Starcraft I.

 

[Gikon]

Hah, you calling Starcraft II the future of gaming!? Oh please it's the same exact thing as Starcraft I except a few new units and a different type of campaign system. Otherwise the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME!

With your post you are only touching the singeplayer side of games. What about multiplayer!? Multiplayer in Starcraft II is exactly the same as Starcraft I.

Actually..SC2 will be more like WC3 with three races, uber graphics, and about 30 to 40 units per class (including buildings). B.net will be similar too wc3's version.

 

[Tyranid]

Actually..SC2 will be more like WC3 with three races, uber graphics, and about 30 to 40 units per class (including buildings). B.net will be similar too wc3's version.

Each race at the moment has 16-19 units. Also the gameplay is EXACTLY like Starcraft I. NOT LIKE WARCRAFT 3. Warcraft 3 was with a few units and powerful heroes, Starcraft has no heroes but bigger armies. The only difference between SC II and SC I is graphics and some new units. Also those gold minerals, unless they were scrapped.

 

[Gikon]

Each race at the moment has 16-19 units. Also the gameplay is EXACTLY like Starcraft I. NOT LIKE WARCRAFT 3. Warcraft 3 was with a few units and powerful heroes, Starcraft has no heroes but bigger armies. The only difference between SC II and SC I is graphics and some new units. Also those gold minerals, unless they were scrapped.

You have read nothing on how SC2 works have you....
SC2 has three or four different types for each of the two minerals. Half of the sc1 buildings where scrapped and replaced with new ones PLUS a few more. A Larger Tier system was added. It is in 3D now... Unit cap is around unlimited...and a shit load of other crap... Bitch do some research..

 

[Newuser]

Hah, you calling Starcraft II the future of gaming!? Oh please it's the same exact thing as Starcraft I except a few new units and a different type of campaign system. Otherwise the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME!

With your post you are only touching the singeplayer side of games. What about multiplayer!? Multiplayer in Starcraft II is exactly the same as Starcraft I.

Regardless of how the main game actually plays, one thing's for sure, the Starcraft 2 editor will rock. Blizzard have said that SC2 editor will be a lot better than WC3's editor(WC3's editor, which can do a lot, I won't list what the WC3 editor can do, I mean this is a map editing site, we should all know).

Of course, I'd also get SC2 for the actual "regular" game play itself, I like SC1's gameplay and story more than WC3s.

Oh please it's the same exact thing as Starcraft I except a few new units and a different type of campaign system. Otherwise the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME!

With your post you are only touching the singeplayer side of games. What about multiplayer!? Multiplayer in Starcraft II is exactly the same as Starcraft I.

Well, yes, it's the "exact thing" if you mean Starcraft 2 won't feature any "crazy" differences like the difference between WC2 and WC3(i.e., WC3 added heroes and creeps, and 4 races instead of 1. Now, before anyone says WC1/2 had two races, not one; I mean the races in the first two WCs were generally the same, they had only 2 different units each, the rest of the units were mostly the same, which is why I say they only have 1 race, not 2).

SC1s gameplay was fine as it is. The reason why they changed the gameplay from WC2 to WC3 is because WC2's gameplay was very "generic" for an RTS.

SC1's gameplay isn't generic(it was revolutionary at the time: 3 distinct, and I mean really distinct races, non rock-paper-scissor style gameplay, micro intensive game play, etc) which is why SC2's "core" gameplay can still be the same as SC1.

Not to mention people like SC1's core gameplay(biggest reason). That's why there's Koreans like Boxer can make nearly half a million dollars($390million, including sponsor money) every year playing Starcraft.

The highest a WC3 player(Moon) makes is only $88 hundred thousand dollars.



Now, if you mean SC2's "entire gameplay" plays "exactly"(as in, near "exactly") to SC1's gameplay - No, Starcraft 2 gameplay is much different from Starcraft 1. I can elaborate if you mean that(also, I won't focus on the new units, there are several other reasons, besides the new units, SC2 will play much different from SC1).

BTW In my opinion the Wii promised revolution and instead delivered us Wii fit.

I agree. I own a Wii and have been somewhat disappointed in the "revolution" and "innovation" Nintendo promised.

Their console is somewhat innovative of course but their games, not so much.

Most of their games are fairly "staying the same", they're doing the same formula.

Also, Nintendo seem to make their online a little too safe.

Let me list examples(of "too safe online" and non-innovativeness with their games):

1. Super Smash Bros Brawl's Online - Ok, no chat and you can't add anyone you meet on your friend lists(instead, resorting to the Friend Code thing). Not to mention there's no "full chat" between friend list players(you have to resort to using 4 pretyped chat phrases, no more than that).

For a T rated game, their being a little "too safe". I can see the reason for E rated(for example - some 9 year old girl decides to tell someone online her address, it gets on the news, Nintendo gets bad publicity) but for a T rated game?

Anyway, here's what Nintendo SHOULD have done.

They should have added chat features(also allow muting other players) and added friend list added.

If Nintendo is afraid that some 9 year old girl will decide to tell someone online her address and name, they could put a warning in red that says "NEVER GIVE OUT YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION TO STRANGERS, IT IS NOT SAFE. NINTENDO STAFF WILL ALSO NEVER ASK FOR YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION, SO DON'T GIVE ANYONE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION".

Well at least Nintendo is "catching on", but they could have started it with SSBB - The latest Animal Crossing has full voice chat and full chat between friend listed players, something which both Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash Bros Brawl does not have.

2. Mario Kart Wii - In general, the core gameplay itself has remained largely the same. Online was a nice introduction but online is one of those things that are "expected" in 7th gen titles. Online is better than SSBB by a large amount.

In terms of the core gameplay, what I would have liked is an "item" and "ability" system similar to Chocobo Racing. Now, I know Chocobo Racing has been rated 5/10 by most game review sites but I think that's largely "over underrated"(I find game reviews useful but this is one of those times where I think they're really over underrated a game).

I mean, I'd rate it a 7/10 , losing points only on graphics(Graphics are mostly 16bit sprites but the core gameplay was much better than Mario Kart's IMO) and the fact it only had 6 racers instead of 8 in game at the time.(I don't mean playable racers, I mean racers present in one race, which was limited to 6. In terms of playable, there were 10 different racers and 8 secret racers, totaling 18 different racers, also there was a "create a racer" type thing which you could do).

Anyway, Chocobo Racing had an item system which was unique and fun.

First off, it wasn't random(you what the items were before you picked them up) and wasn't based on the place you are in(Mario Kart gives good items to those in last place, weaker items to those in first place, which I kind of don't like because it makes it so that only the final lap really matters).

My explanation of the item system in Chocobo Racing

When you picked up an item(items are all represented by "orbs"), it is "literally" dragged behind you. You can "drag" up to 3 items at once, for use.

You and other racers can steal each other's items.

Anyway, items can also be "upgraded". For example, there is an item called "Fire", it shoots a fire blast in front of you.

You can collect another "Fire" to upgrade it to "Fira", this will shoot a fire blast that homes on the person in front of you.

Collecting three "Fire" orbs upgrades it even more, it will shoot a fire blast that automatically hits everyone in front of you.

Anyway, the item system in Chocobo Racing was unique, it was better than the item system in Mario Kart IMO. Too bad Nintendo didn't try something like that in Mario Kart Wii(maybe as a optional game mode?).

.

Next is abilities.

Explanation of abilities

Abilities were kind of basic but they added a lot of variety and fun,

Before the race starts, you can pick an ability. The ability will "Charge" over time, when it is full, you can use the ability.

Stronger abilities(such as "Mega Flare", which hit wcwet single racer on the field, dealing massive damage) required a longer time to charge.

In general, while the strong abilities may seem strong, they're made up by the fact that they take a long time to charge.

Weaker abilities, such as "Charge"(Boost speeds and causes your racer to "stun" any racers you hit while the effect is active) were balanced by the fact they charged much quicker than abilities such as "Mega Flare".

That's the ability system in a nutshell, it's very simple BUT it made the game a lot more fun.

Again, would have liked it if Nintendo tried something like that in Mario Kart(Maybe as an optional game mode).

A Chocobo Racing sequel would have been nice, but nearly 10 years, Square shows no sign of making a sequel. So that means either Nintendo or some other gaming company has to make some sort of kart racing game like Chocobo Racing. Nintendo seems too lazy to try anything new in the Mario Kart series and Square shows no signs of making a sequel. Of course, there's other gaming companies too which could make a racing game like chocobo racing.

3. Wii Sports - Now, I know this is supposed to be an "introduction" to the Wii type of game instead of a full fledged game, but they could have improved on a little, I'm talking about Wii Tennis mainly.

Wii Tennis - They could have added a game option for "manual movement". As it is currently, movement is automatic, this limits the game to simple Wiimote waving which makes the game kind of simple.

What they could have done was added manual movement, using the Dpad or using the Analog stick on the Nunchuck. That would have made the game much more fun.

Speaking of Wii Sports, their Mario Party series hasn't exactly been "innovative"(most games were very similar to the previous) and their Mario Baseball on the Wii(Mario Super Sluggers) was disappointing.

4. Animal Crossing - In general, most people (reviewers and gamefaqers) agree that the gameplay is mostly the same, aside from the addition of online.

Overall, I don't think Nintendo is being very "innovative" with their games, which is kind of a disappointment considering their strong emphasis on the word "innovation" and "revolution" when they announced the Wii and when they advertised(shameless marketing strategy).

 

[Tyranid]

You have read nothing on how SC2 works have you....
SC2 has three or four different types for each of the two minerals. Half of the sc1 buildings where scrapped and replaced with new ones PLUS a few more. A Larger Tier system was added. It is in 3D now... Unit cap is around unlimited...and a shit load of other crap... Bitch do some research..

I guess you fail to miss my point. New units/buildings and special minerals DO NOT make a new game! Despite being 3D, the special minerals and new units/buildings the core gameplay is IDENTICAL! THEY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY AT ALL ON THAT! For example, see Dawn of War I -> Dawn of War II, Warcraft II -> Warcraft III, and so on. Those sequels did/do ALOT OF THINGS differently! If you still fail to understand my point then bitch get some brains.

 

[Ghost765]

is it only me that thinks DoW2>Sc2

 

[VeljkoM]

I guess you fail to miss my point. New units/buildings and special minerals DO NOT make a new game! Despite being 3D, the special minerals and new units/buildings the core gameplay is IDENTICAL! THEY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY AT ALL ON THAT! For example, see Dawn of War I -> Dawn of War II, Warcraft II -> Warcraft III, and so on. Those sequels did/do ALOT OF THINGS differently! If you still fail to understand my point then bitch get some brains.

What do you expect?It is starcraft not new series of games.So you say that those new units are old and they didn't change a thing.
Just check how many units have been kicked from starcraft first.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Blizzard is giving the fans what they want, and if you asked a lot of professional starcraft players, they would say they just want a 3D starcraft lol... Pretty pathetic, but I think it will still be great. If DoW2 has an editor (with coding) then it probably wins, but I doubt it...

 

[VeljkoM]

Don't forget about Xel'naga.Blizzard said that they will make them.

 

[Tyranid]

What do you expect?It is starcraft not new series of games.So you say that those new units are old and they didn't change a thing.
Just check how many units have been kicked from starcraft first.

Just how stupid are you? I'm not saying that the units are old. I am aware that there are alot of NEW units. However the GAMEPLAY is the same. No not the units BUT THE GAMEPLAY! GAMEPLAY! GAMEPLAY! You get it now!? GAMEPLAY! The game does NOTHING new to the CORE GAMEPLAY! It's still the same, just with new units! THAT. DOES. NOT. MAKE. A. NEW. GAME!

 

[Gilles]

Poor Tyranid. I suggest leaving the thread, no one seems to be listening to you anyways.

Hah, you calling Starcraft II the future of gaming!? Oh please it's the same exact thing as Starcraft I except a few new units and a different type of campaign system. Otherwise the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME!

You guys seem to have just skipped this whole post, and forced Tyranid to repeat himself.

 

[TM-Magic]

Just how stupid are you? I'm not saying that the units are old. I am aware that there are alot of NEW units. However the GAMEPLAY is the same. No not the units BUT THE GAMEPLAY! GAMEPLAY! GAMEPLAY! You get it now!? GAMEPLAY! The game does NOTHING new to the CORE GAMEPLAY! It's still the same, just with new units! THAT. DOES. NOT. MAKE. A. NEW. GAME!

Tyranid, you upset me. You know nothing about RTS gaming and you act like you know everything. SC2 may not seem like it has a lot of gameplay differences...but infact it actually has some major ones.

For one, the pathblockers that you can destroy that open up the map...this will make the game change as you play. Now, for someone like you, who would probably just sit there massing dragoons and photon cannons, that doesn't mean a whole lot. But in professional gaming, that adds a huge difference.

Secondly, the line of sight blockers that were added will affect gameplay a lot as well. Now you can lure your enemy into such areas and ambush them.

Third, the fact that a unit will no longer be revealed when attacking from a place in the fog of war. (like a siege tank on a hill will not be revealed to a player who has units that were attacked by it lower down. This adds a huge difference when it comes to fortifying yourself...especially with the line of sight blockers. You hide a few tanks in there and a couple "helpless" looking marines on the outside. Next thing you know you have free kills and your enemy is down resources.

Next we have the observation towers. "Knowing your enemy" is probably the biggest fundemental of war. If you don't know your enemy, your blind and your building random units to fight against an army you don't know where it is. These towers will give warning to an attack and can help with the tank on the hill sight fix.

Finally we have the units. Again. For someone like you, Tyranid, these differences don't mean jack, but for someone who actually knows how to play and play well, they mean a LOT.

For one thing, units have what I call, a higher counter ability. The immortals, for example, have a shield that protects them against high damaging units, but not against low damaging units. In Sc1, there was NOTHING like this. You wouldn't see ANY lesser unit having an advantage on a greater unit (except maybe zerglings on tanks or zerglings on dragoons).

Another thing, the zerg have a queen unit that can protect your base early on...ultralisks that can burrow...infestors that can infest a lot of different buildings...exploding zerglings (banelings)...ect...ect

You may not agree...because its obvious your an amateur, but having units that do different things change the gameplay drastically. I mean I have a zergling blood map (based on the sc version) that was good...balanced...fun...and I felt like it wasn't good enough yet so I kept tweaking it and tweaking it and now...just by changing the unit values slightly so that the buyable units are easier to kill, but you gain gold faster...the gameplay is infact completely different. The game is far better now than it was just by fixing it up slightly. And what they're doing with starcraft 2 is on a whole different level...they're doing far more to change it.

Sc2 vs Sc1 will not be the small difference you've seen between SSBM and SSBB. They aren't just adding a couple dudes and making it look better...They've made existing strategies better and added a whole lot more to it. The only thing I'm actually worried about...is the balance. I mean I know I shouldn't be, because its blizzard and its starcraft...possibly the most balanced game on the planet...but with so much strategy added to it, I'm afraid some strategies will be better than others...for a game thats probably going to be played in Korea for hundreds of thousands of dollars...it needs to be balanced as fuck.

 

[VeljkoM]

Now this is right.To long but accurate.And +rep.

 

[Ghost765]

i think the gameplay is pretty much the same as tyranid said. mass units for large scale battles. thats what blizzard aimed for in the beginning.

 

[VeljkoM]

Starcraft 1

Starcraft gameplay

Starcraft 2

Starcraft 2 gameplay

See any difference?

 

[Ghost765]

instead of showing us an entire game of SCI and just the climaxes of SCII, show us how a melee game starts in SCII and lets compare to SCI. The races still need time to gather resources, they still need time to train units. You dont start out with a huge army.
Look, the concept and gameplay is the same. Mass units for huge battles that usually decide the outcome of the game.

 

[TM-Magic]

Well..Those movies are a poor representation of both. The sc one looks like its vs a comp, handled by an amateur. The sc2 one looks like its vs a player, handled by experienced players. There's more strategy than that in sc1 (and a lot of things aren't shown in both). It does make its point tho

If you ask me, the gaming industry is still lacking a lot of creativity tho, just like most scifi films lack good acting and dialogue. The gaming industry needs to get away from always doing the same things...there's certain categories, which are defined and defined well...but it needs to broaden.

For example...in a fighting game, theres a button for block, a button for punch and a button for kick. If you combine these into different combinations, you get different results/moves. In an rpg you run up and repeatedly hit A to attack or B to block or C to cast a spell...but why not combine it with the fighting controls and make a 3rd person rpg with different combinations for different attacks?

That is a simple way of combineing...I'm not sure how good the gameplay would be and I'm not 100% but I think someone's already created that somewhere (maybe not very well if its not very known).

Now Idk if any of you have seen the miniseries "Merlin", but the way magic works in there would make a good game. In there, there are 3 types of magic, each with different difficulties. The first type of magic you can learn has to do with using your hands. You wave them around in a certain way and something happens. The second type is using your voice. You say the magic words and something happens. The third and hardest magic is doing it all in thought.

Again idk if any of you have played this, but the game Nox (by westwood before it was combined with EA games) was an awsome game. The questing...the dialogue...the spells and the way it was all setup was done really well. Now if something like that was combined with something like "Merlin", it would bring up a new type of gameplay that would be fun and challenging.

Nox started off with you are in the present time and you have this orb for an ornament and a dark sorceress casts a spell to get the orb, sending you and it into (I'm not sure if its suppose to be the past or just a different parallel universe) but either way, you get sent there and you meet up with this dude in a hot air balloon that thinks your some evil spirit. You convince him your not and he asks you if you want to become a wizard, conjurer, or warrior.

What makes that game fun and exciting is how its done. It's not just you meet up with some people and they give you some quest, it makes it more elaborate than that. Say you get to town and its being raided by ogres who have already burned half of it to the ground. There were no cut scenes telling you ahead of time, you just happen to go there and its on fire. There you defeat some ogres and are given some subquests to help the people who have lost things.

Now this is an older game nowadays, but the over all questing and feel of it was glorious. To be honest, I'd like to see more of that but combined with some new ideas.

For instance, the whole thing doesn't have to be chronological... say half way through the game there's a 40% chance the village will burn now, a 30% chance it'll burn a little bit later, 20% chance it'll burn towards the end and a 10% chance it won't burn at all. This would make a game exciting to play every time. And I don't mean just do it with the village burning...you can add that same idea to any event. Say the wizard your suppose to meet up with isn't at home but is hunting in the nearby village or on a quest. You can either wait there for him or you can go do some nearby subquests.

These are just a few examples of what could be done to spice up the industry.

 

[Ghost765]

stop saying amateur. you've given me the impression that you're an elitist.
anyways, SCI led the way in using terrain to your advantage. As such. Units were classified by their size, armor and attack types were classified as well. Smaller units such as Lings or Rines could be in forests and take less damage from ranged attacks, allowing a few Rines to hold out against a goliath or a siege tank.
A Rines and Bats teamed up with a few medics can really hold the line against stronger units, especially if you stim them.
Height also played an important role, Height gives more vision, and your enemy has a chance to miss if you shoot to high ground.
Protect Zerg earlier on? WTF? Zerg do not need protecting earlier on, they can mass Lings quite effectively early on.
The Industry does'nt need spicing up, it just needs more pioneers. I'm hoping DoW2 will be one of them, where you actually have to micro alot, since you only control 2-4 squads, and can rarely recieve reinforcements.

 

[Razorbrain]

Sc2 vs Sc1 will not be the small difference you've seen between SSBM and SSBB. They aren't just adding a couple dudes and making it look better...They've made existing strategies better and added a whole lot more to it. The only thing I'm actually worried about...is the balance. I mean I know I shouldn't be, because its blizzard and its starcraft...possibly the most balanced game on the planet...but with so much strategy added to it, I'm afraid some strategies will be better than others...for a game thats probably going to be played in Korea for hundreds of thousands of dollars...it needs to be balanced as fuck.

your post was great until this arrived in there

there is a BIG difference between Melee and Brawl, just to point that out, and i mean Gameplay wise.

anyhow, Tyranid is half-right, half-wrong. There are new features in SC2 that affect gameplay, but in the core, the gameplay is still the same. Let me demonstrate.

Wc3 brought many new things to the Warcraft franchise. Heroes changed a lot in the gameplay and that fact that the races were actually UNIQUE was something that also changed. It also introduced an item system for the heroes aswell and gave all the units certain attack types and armor types so certain units would be better against others(this was already in SC1 to a small degree, but i can only remember the C-10 canister rifle(the ghost weapon) to be anything alike).

In SC2, there is a bunch of new features, but its still Starcraft 1 with better graphics and different units and a bunch of new features. Warcraft 3 was almost nothing like Warcraft 2. People had to learn how to use the new heroes and the new attack types to actually understand the new game. This will not be the same when it comes to Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2 will be viritually a new game, but essentialy a boosted up Starcraft 1.

 

[VeljkoM]

What people want from starcraft 2 anyway.New game made from scratch.Any way was warcraft first really that different from Warcraf 2.
And we still didn't see all new things.They said that they will make Xel'naga but not they won't be for player.We still even don't know all units many more...

 

[Ghost765]

people want from SC2 a sequel that lives up to the SCI, and the hype about SC2.

Yes Wc2 was different from Wc3. They introduced alot of different races, even if most of them were creeps, like Gnolls, and Naga. Night Elves and Undead as well. Blizzard got rid of Naval units for use in ladder, they added 2 new races, they diversified the races so they are unique, instead of the same units with minor stat changes and name/sprite changes.

fix your grammar please, maybe, no?

 

[VeljkoM]

Wc1 and wc2 actually, read the post.Well they can't add more races can they know and units are almost totally changed.But as i said we still don't know everything about Starcraft 2.There will maybe some changes that we won't expect.
And sorry for grammar but not all people on the world speak English.
And my translator is stupid.

 

[Ghost765]

they can add new races. like the other humans, other than the Dominion. forgot what they were called. Or maybe the Hybrid race.

 

[VeljkoM]

Well they said something about Hybrid race.But they said that United Earth has same tech as Terrans.That's what they said not me.

 

[Artins the Great]

Do ya work for Blizzard?

 

[VeljkoM]

No I don't.I just like to ready wikis and their sites.

 

[TM-Magic]

I think its fairly obvious that SC2 vs SC1 will never be the difference between Wc2 vs Wc3. Wc2, I never really played it, but it wasn't as good for its time as sc was. SC was fairly groundbreaking in some respects to RTS. The gameplay doesn't need much changing on a grand scale, which is why I skipped the step of saying all of that (I thought that was already established). However, I will say again the gameplay is fairly different. And again, we haven't played sc2 so it isn't fair to compare it to things we have.

In short, what I am trying to say is sc2 can only be "a boosted up sc1" because sc1 was already really great. If you take something that was great and change it drastically, no one will play it because they will all be disappointed because it isn't the same.

With that being said, the differences in sc2 ARE fairly drastic with that in mind.
I know my words are very often misinterpreted , so let me say this differently. Sc2 never had the possibility to be drastically different because it is based on an already existing and great game and doesn't need much changing. But for that amount of change allowed so that it would be similar but in a push forward (gameplay-wise), it is a fairly big change.

A Rines and Bats teamed up with a few medics can really hold the line against stronger units, especially if you stim them.
Height also played an important role, Height gives more vision, and your enemy has a chance to miss if you shoot to high ground.
Protect Zerg earlier on? WTF? Zerg do not need protecting earlier on, they can mass Lings quite effectively early on.
The Industry does'nt need spicing up, it just needs more pioneers. I'm hoping DoW2 will be one of them, where you actually have to micro alot, since you only control 2-4 squads, and can rarely recieve reinforcements.

First:
Rines + fbs could not stand up to the equal amount of a higher end unit.
Tanks > rines + fbs + medics.
Reaver > rines + fbs + medics.
Lurker > rines + fbs + medics + detector.

Second: The Queen protection thing is something blizzard added, I'm not sure why yet, but I'm sure they need it in sc2.

Third: You say they don't need spicing up but the industry needs more pioneers, I think we're referring to the same idea, being that the industry lacks creativity.

 

[TM-Magic]

Ghost765, when you say they removed the ships and changed the units and such from wc2 to wc3, the exact same thing is true about sc1 to sc2...sure they didn't scrap ALL the units and start over, but they removed a bunch and added a bunch as well as new mechanics and such that you do not see between wc2 and wc3.

Second of all, if you are only looking at unit differences, your denying most of my argument which is actually fact, not fiction, if you go look it up you can find everything I've talked about.

Third, don't tell someone their grammer sucks when your sentences aren't even full sentences.

Fourth, they can't just add another race just like that. The way sc1 ended didn't leave room for another playable race outa the blue. It's true they could have made it so you can choose different human groups who have different specialties or slightly different units, however, gameplay for that would take a few years more...would you really want to wait another 2 or 3 years just to balance that? Its especially hard to balance extra races, which is why wc3 isn't 100% balanced like sc is (it is balanced very well but just not perfect).

Lastly, a half-human, half mechanical race is already used in other games and wouldn't be unique at all and it wouldn't fit in the story of starcraft AT ALL. I think some people forget there's already a story made for it and they basically have to follow it. They've even said that Nova, from starcraft ghost, would appear in the game, which means that whole story is somehow added...along with all of the starcraft books they made. (yeh I know no one really reads those), but they still need to follow their story.

 

[Ghost765]

when did i ever say that the hybrids were half-mech-half man? if you've played the secret mission, duran did some experiments with Zerg/Protoss hybrids, and he hints that he might be Xel'Naga.
I may right in incomplete sentences, but atleast i make them understandable.

Lets look at your little greater units kill lesser units.
Lets say that 5 Marines and 3 Firebats + 4medics are going against
4 siege tanks in siege mode. If you stim your Marines and Bats, you can quickly charge the siege tanks, to pointblank. Siege tanks have a minimum range. Siege tanks splash also hurts their allies. At this point your medics are either dead or wounded since they cant stim themselves. Good human shields, and if they survive, they help your marines last a little longer. Tanks get killed by a combination of marine firepower and their own splash damage.

Reavers are strange. They build their own projectiles and do 100 damage, so its a bit trickier, but all you need to do is spread your troops out, and once again stim and charge in point blank. from all sides. Even if it does fire off a round at a unit, if ur long ranged enough, only the main target and one or two other units will die. If i remember correctly, reavers have a minimum range aswell.

Lurkers... they cant kill with one hit, and firebats deal extra damage agaisnt them i think. Anyways, medics can heal up any injury caused by the spikes, and eventually the lurkers will die since they have slow rate of attack, and not that high hp.

 

[TM-Magic]

First of all, 4 sieged tanks would kill just about everyone in 1 hit. 70 damage is more than enough to kill a marine in 1 hit and splash the others around. Those marines and fbs would HAVE to be comeing form all directions to do enough to be able to get close enough to kill them without them unsieging and taking you out.

Second of all, reavers do 100 dmg and do NOT have a minimum range. 2 reavers would be more than enough to kill your little group.

Third, lurkers wouldn't be seen, and if they were, they do fairly good line splash dmg. I'm not sure exactly how much but even if they were as low as 20 dmg, it would take 2 to kill your group, let alone a bunch of them, unless again they were coming from all angles which would make it hard for the medics to heal anyways.

I suggest you base assumptions like that on actual gameplay you've seen in the past few months, otherwise your memory is skewed.

 

[Ghost765]

reavers need time to make their little balls of fury, even if they dont have minimum range, the marines can just surround the reaver from all sides and shoot, safe from killing each other through splash.
im fairly sure reaver splash damages themselves.
I've always seen a marine survive an arclite blast when it was moving, and anyways, medics would heal them up.
Unsieging is a bad idea, it takes up too much time, plus they do significantly less damage at a slightly fast pace. and they dont deal splash damage, so they just cant stand many marine shooting point blank with medics healing

The fact is that lurkers do LINE splash damage. So as long as the marines form up in a line that is perpendicular to the lurkers attack, the lurkers will only be able to attack one marine at a time unless the zerg micros.
the firebats would also present a problem for lurkers, especially when stimmed.
and i said before, lurkers dont have that much hp, their only real advantage is that they are invisible and deal line splash.

 

[TM-Magic]

First of all...Tanks unsieging is the only thing you can do when they are in the minimum range. When I said that I was refering to if they were.

Second...Reavers do NOT dmg allied units and do 100 dmg each shot. Which is more than enough to kill ANY Marine, firebat or medic in 1 shot as well as those within 2 marine sizes around them, and also home on. Their attack can be prebuilt up to 10 balls (5non-upgraded) and even if not, the build time is only a sec or 2 longer than the actual attack rate.


Dude seriously. Your argument is getting weaker by the second with your ill-supported faulty memory. Again I suggest actually playing the game instead of using your memory, because your using it against yourself. I'm not even going to comment on the lurker situation.

At any rate, this discussion is not meant for this forum and is silly to continue anyways since its obvious neither of us will change our minds.

 

[Ghost765]

oh...you were the guy that made zergling blood. i played that map with you. lawl. anyways, thinking the same thing. im getting to tired for arguing over games.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

You two are completely off topic. I suggest you both STFU and get back on topic, or I report you.

Honestly, it really depends on what you look at the future of gaming. For me, I see Starcraft 2 as the new competitive E-sport. A new DotA will probably also arise (unless Blizzard makes their own and updates it) and that will probably also become a major gaming sport. As for revolution and ooh aah that's amazing, I don't think it will hit that factor. The graphics will certainly make it eye appealing, but Dawn of War 2 I feel will really push the RTS genre into new places such as more destructible environments and cover which is seen in some of the companies earlier games, but not on this destructive level.

 

[Tyranid]

Tyranid, you upset me. You know nothing about RTS gaming and you act like you know everything. SC2 may not seem like it has a lot of gameplay differences...but infact it actually has some major ones.

For one, the pathblockers that you can destroy that open up the map...this will make the game change as you play. Now, for someone like you, who would probably just sit there massing dragoons and photon cannons, that doesn't mean a whole lot. But in professional gaming, that adds a huge difference.

Secondly, the line of sight blockers that were added will affect gameplay a lot as well. Now you can lure your enemy into such areas and ambush them.

Third, the fact that a unit will no longer be revealed when attacking from a place in the fog of war. (like a siege tank on a hill will not be revealed to a player who has units that were attacked by it lower down. This adds a huge difference when it comes to fortifying yourself...especially with the line of sight blockers. You hide a few tanks in there and a couple "helpless" looking marines on the outside. Next thing you know you have free kills and your enemy is down resources.

Next we have the observation towers. "Knowing your enemy" is probably the biggest fundemental of war. If you don't know your enemy, your blind and your building random units to fight against an army you don't know where it is. These towers will give warning to an attack and can help with the tank on the hill sight fix.

Finally we have the units. Again. For someone like you, Tyranid, these differences don't mean jack, but for someone who actually knows how to play and play well, they mean a LOT.

For one thing, units have what I call, a higher counter ability. The immortals, for example, have a shield that protects them against high damaging units, but not against low damaging units. In Sc1, there was NOTHING like this. You wouldn't see ANY lesser unit having an advantage on a greater unit (except maybe zerglings on tanks or zerglings on dragoons).

Another thing, the zerg have a queen unit that can protect your base early on...ultralisks that can burrow...infestors that can infest a lot of different buildings...exploding zerglings (banelings)...ect...ect

You may not agree...because its obvious your an amateur, but having units that do different things change the gameplay drastically. I mean I have a zergling blood map (based on the sc version) that was good...balanced...fun...and I felt like it wasn't good enough yet so I kept tweaking it and tweaking it and now...just by changing the unit values slightly so that the buyable units are easier to kill, but you gain gold faster...the gameplay is infact completely different. The game is far better now than it was just by fixing it up slightly. And what they're doing with starcraft 2 is on a whole different level...they're doing far more to change it.

Sc2 vs Sc1 will not be the small difference you've seen between SSBM and SSBB. They aren't just adding a couple dudes and making it look better...They've made existing strategies better and added a whole lot more to it. The only thing I'm actually worried about...is the balance. I mean I know I shouldn't be, because its blizzard and its starcraft...possibly the most balanced game on the planet...but with so much strategy added to it, I'm afraid some strategies will be better than others...for a game thats probably going to be played in Korea for hundreds of thousands of dollars...it needs to be balanced as fuck.

I love it how you instantly think that I have no idea about the RTS genre or about Starcraft. Well I'm sorry to dissapoint you but I know ALOT about the RTS genre and also about Starcraft. Now I may not be a pro in Starcraft but I still do know how the game works and also am familiar with alot of strategies.

However, the things that Starcraft II is adding to SC I (besides graphics) right now seem more like "expansion pack" content rather than sequel content. I am aware that there are sequels that do the same thing as the previous game, but that doesn't mean Blizzard should do so too. Blizzard should get off their fanboy hate fearing asses and work on something completely new, ALL THE WAY FROM SCRATCH!

Right now Starcraft II is still the same as Starcraft I at the core. Even if they added new features, the gameplay at core is the same! It generally plays the same except there are a few features which give you one or two new options.

New things would be if the game actually played a whole lot more differently. Line of sight blockers and more rock-paper-scissors system does not make it all that much different. Yes it open up some new tactics and strategies but it does not revolutionize the gameplay.

I could go on and on but I can already see how you are just going to keep on calling me an "amateur" and say that I am completely alien to the RTS genre, but the truth is that you are wrong even if you will never believe that over your elitist fanboyism.

 

[Razorbrain]

If you take something that was great and change it drastically, no one will play it because they will all be disappointed because it isn't the same.

I recognise this somewhere

i wonder i wonder.....

 

[VeljkoM]

Looks like Blizzard will have to make new Starcraft for you.

 

[TM-Magic]

I call you an amateur because you act like one.

Second of all. You must have skipped over a couple of my posts that clearly say that they don't have an option to make it a new game because it was already a good game. Why the hell would u change what is already awesome in a huge way? I ask you that. You don't take a game that is being played for hundreds of thousands of dollars and change it completely. It is true they only have 3 universes, however, blizzards goal is to expand those universes. And in case you haven't noticed, they're way works just as well, if not better than anyone elses. After all, everything they've produced in the last decade were huge sellers.

I also call you an amateur because you don't understand the power of subtle differences. Like I said in one of my last posts, my zergling blood map changed drastically just by making heroes slightly more susceptible to damage.

I don't know if I can stress this enough, so I'll say it again. You do not take something awesome and fuck it up...instead you tweak it and enhance it. Honestly, I'd be really pissed if they made SC2 drastically different... I've played sc for a decade now and I wouldn't want it to go down like that.

 

[VeljkoM]

I miss old kicked out units.I hope that they will be in editor.And new editor is also improvement.
It looks like everybody wants something different.It is just point of view.

 

[Tyranid]

I call you an amateur because you act like one.

Second of all. You must have skipped over a couple of my posts that clearly say that they don't have an option to make it a new game because it was already a good game. Why the hell would u change what is already awesome in a huge way? I ask you that. You don't take a game that is being played for hundreds of thousands of dollars and change it completely. It is true they only have 3 universes, however, blizzards goal is to expand those universes. And in case you haven't noticed, they're way works just as well, if not better than anyone elses. After all, everything they've produced in the last decade were huge sellers.

I also call you an amateur because you don't understand the power of subtle differences. Like I said in one of my last posts, my zergling blood map changed drastically just by making heroes slightly more susceptible to damage.

I don't know if I can stress this enough, so I'll say it again. You do not take something awesome and fuck it up...instead you tweak it and enhance it. Honestly, I'd be really pissed if they made SC2 drastically different... I've played sc for a decade now and I wouldn't want it to go down like that.

Just because it worked the first time DOES NOT MEAN it works the 2nd time! Just because it was awesome does not mean "hey let's stop here and never improve again". By your logic Warcraft I should have never improved. Just because you build it from scratch DOES NOT MEAN you fuck it up. It can be great and be different yet still have the Starcraft feel to it.

 

[VeljkoM]

How can you even speak like that about Starcraft 2 when it is not even finished.
Play it first then say what ever you want.
And if you don't like it make it your self.Do you think it is easy for Blizzard to make new game when everybody expects to be greatest RTS.

I am sorry if this is offending but that is truth.I am also sorry if this is consider a flame
and if so I will delete this massage.And sorry for bad grammar.

 

[TM-Magic]

VeljkoM, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is what I'm trying to tell Tyranid, who misunderstands my speeches at every corner.

Tyranid...what the hell are you talking about...

Just because it worked the first time DOES NOT MEAN it works the 2nd time!

I have no idea what that's suppose to mean.

Btw, I never said that it shouldn't be improved on, but your looking at it as if when you do make an improvement, it has to be HUGE. Subtlety my friend...subtlety.

Edit: Also your putting a lot of words into my mouth...

It can be great and be different yet still have the Starcraft feel to it.

This is my point. It IS different and still has the same starcraft feel to it. Just because your an extremist who can't see that, doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

[VeljkoM]

I think he means Starcraft was good when it came out, but that maybe not the case with Starcraft 2 if it has same gameplay.-my interpretation.
Some people just want to see big things.
They don't know that best things come in small package
And thank you TM-Magic for agreeing with me.

 

[TM-Magic]

Now my post is buried with all this sc talk. I think I"m going to repost the subject of this forum.