• Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
  • Read Evilhog's interview with Gregory Alper, the original composer of the music for WarCraft: Orcs & Humans 🔗Click here to read the full interview.

Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 or Warcraft 4?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
These threads are so boring. Anyway Starcraft for me. I really can't think of what new original stuff could be in a sequel to Diablo II, and I think the wc3 saga has reached its' end. But if the make a sequel to Starcraft, they have to try really hard or not do it at all. Starcraft is well balanced. What we want to is continuation of the story. There is already big forums for just these discussions.
 
Level 3
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
69
Well, I think WoW will be seen by Blizzard for the new Warcraft,so no Warcraft 4, and YES, Starcraft would be great, but with better graphics ... Diablo, never tried, saw it, but it looked crappy, sorry :lol:

-Elvorith
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,255
WC4 I would like to see.
They could up multiplayer map size to 10-20 MB due to new graffics and conection speeds allowing even better maps.
They could also add multiplayer multimap suportiability.

Sadly this is but a dream.
Since can you not see that blizzard will never release another game like WC3 due to the lack of income.
Think about it they made WoW and then straight onto a WoW expansion and blizzard is making Starcraft ghost (both mmorpg)

It does not pay them enough to make another game like wc3. WoW has brought in more money than wc1-3tft has ever due to the monthly fees.

The only way they would make WC4 or SC2 is if people would pay them the same fees if not more than that of WoW.

All very sad to think about having to pay to play. . .
 
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
Ramza said:
Daminon said:
The thing is that Blizzard's games are so good that no one want's them to end. We want sequels.

yep :D

i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them
WHY THE HELL DOES PEOPLE PREFER 2D?! Real life is 3d. Everythinh looks better and faaar more realistic in 3d. Much more posibilitis in 3d. Able to zoom and gives camera freedom in 3d. Ever heard the 3d simulated projectiles in Total Annihilation that was such an awsome thing? Would you prefer if the graphics stoped at 2d? Glad to dissapoint you. Graphics won't stop until you can't see the differece between game and movie.
 
Daminon said:
Ramza said:
Daminon said:
The thing is that Blizzard's games are so good that no one want's them to end. We want sequels.

yep :D

i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them
WHY THE HELL DOES PEOPLE PREFER 2D?! Real life is 3d. Everythinh looks better and faaar more realistic in 3d. Much more posibilitis in 3d. Able to zoom and gives camera freedom in 3d. Ever heard the 3d simulated projectiles in Total Annihilation that was such an awsome thing? Would you prefer if the graphics stoped at 2d? Glad to dissapoint you. Graphics won't stop until you can't see the differece between game and movie.
Realistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
3,426
olofmoleman said:
Daminon said:
Ramza said:
Daminon said:
The thing is that Blizzard's games are so good that no one want's them to end. We want sequels.

yep :D

i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them
WHY THE HELL DOES PEOPLE PREFER 2D?! Real life is 3d. Everythinh looks better and faaar more realistic in 3d. Much more posibilitis in 3d. Able to zoom and gives camera freedom in 3d. Ever heard the 3d simulated projectiles in Total Annihilation that was such an awsome thing? Would you prefer if the graphics stoped at 2d? Glad to dissapoint you. Graphics won't stop until you can't see the differece between game and movie.
Realistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.

yes, i agree 3D looks better, but u cant have 3D strategic games like warcraft III, which is what i like the most
 
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
Olofmoleman said:
Realistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.
When isn't is it not?

You don't want games to feel closer to reality? Then why should movies look like reality? The only differense between movies and games is that you are a part of the movie and that games doesn't look as real as movies, yet.

Ramza said:
yes, i agree 3D looks better, but u cant have 3D strategic games like warcraft III, which is what i like the most
Give one argument.

And please understand that all games are not ment to be a simulated reality such as puzzle games and such. So don't mention any such.
 
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that the camera is hard to get right becouse it isn't locked? It gives too much freedom? It makes no difference and what is better than zooming in on your troops and look at their direction when they shoot at the storming enemy?
 

Ki

Ki

Level 7
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
258
i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them

I thought Ramza suggested that wc3 wasn't a 3D game. When he said that he never played 3D games, I thought he was referring to MMORPGs. He said the wc3 gameplay is so good, but then said he never plays 3D games. Did I misinterpret?
 
Level 13
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
1,330
Any real 3D strategic game?

Homeworld (the only game you really can call "3D")
Warzone 2100
Supreme Commander (release in 2007)
Earth 2150/2160
etc.

Although Supreme Commander is the only one you can call a strategic game, all in all WC3 and other games are tactic games (but that's another story).
 
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
Ramza the roofs and such is not a requirement for something to be classified as 3d. Not is real use of height either. Those things aren't not a required to be used just becouse they are fully possible. It's just that Blizzard didn't want to have it in wc3. It's like saying that every projectile should be 3d-simulated (glory to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander) just becouse it's possible with 3d. Take gryphos attacking each other for example, if a unit comes in the way it wont be hit unless the units are ordered to cancel their current attack and attack it instead. I wouldn't require big changes, but again Blizzard din't didn't find it neccesary.. Actually roof and house levels can be compared to that a units arm can sitck out from the body. See there is a height level between the ground and his arm so it's nothing but true 3d.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
3,426
yes there is a height difference between the arms of units and the ground, but i mean, heights so u can walk underneath it. and heights are needed for 3D games cuz 3D without heights its 2D right? but yes i know wc3 is 3D, read my last topic and u c why i like wc3-like games more
 
Level 9
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
533
3D RTS games do work out fine, if you dont believe me, go play Black & White 2, then come back and tell me that 3d RTS games are bad...
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
120
i'd have to go with Warcraft 4 because diablo isnt that great and i have never played starcraft... :( i shd. o well anyways.. warcraft 3 ended on a cliff hanger and i want to know what happens later in the campaign. Does anyone know if they are working on a war4 yet?
 
Level 3
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
41
-.- its not that simple

For one thing, ive heard their bringing about a Diablo3, heres my source of this-
http://www.maximumgamerz.com/forums/index.php?s=0a56d67a9662e60f93ecb487f800c507&showtopic=2916

For 2, it all depends. What does Starcraft have to go on? they could expand it so much with maybe new races, as far as i remember all the zergs are officially gone in Brood War so there'd have to be a new evil and maybe a few other races. Warcraft4? whadya mean by that? some people call WoW warcraft4
Do you mean Warcraft4 as in another RTS or another MMORPG or soemthing other even! Diablo3, i seriously dun see how it could keep going on even though their making one supposedly( hey at least this link is more then a rumor, its a direct source, so use it as so or itll start getting passed around and changed.
 
Level 12
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
999
Re: -.- its not that simple

milcon said:
What does Starcraft have to go on? they could expand it so much with maybe new races, as far as i remember all the zergs are officially gone in Brood War so there'd have to be a new evil and maybe a few other races.
Ehm check this forum about Stacraft II. And there is many things to continue on in Starcraft. And the zergs are not gone. It was they who were "victorious" in Brood War. What is gone is the UED fleet.
 

Ki

Ki

Level 7
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
258
I guess it would be more bad than good considering my mouse would have to be replaced rather quickly (didn't you have to click for every attack?). I was just commenting on the excessive clicking, although I may have been doing it too much because I didn't know any hotkeys.

If they were to give the game better security, less clicking, better graphics, and more features, I think I'd buy it.
 
Level 3
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
41
LAST WARCRAFT GAME? are you insane. If WoW is the last Warcraft game ima be mad. Im going to be even more mad if sometime or another they stop changin WoW. The Warcraft story must keep on going, if they suddenly end it on a cliff hanger, or even the Warcraft world blows up in some stupid crazy way, i would hate Blizzard for Eternity!!!! I tihkn i feel this way because ive been playing Warcraft games since in kindergarden :wink: .
 
Level 4
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
83
I'd prefer Starcraft 2. It's because it's the only game of the 3 games that didn't get a sequel yet. An expansion pack? Yes, but a full-blown sequel? Not yet. Diablo had Diablo 2. Warcraft had Warcraft 2, then Warcraft 3, and you can probably say WoW is a sequel for the series as well, so I think it's time Starcraft needed a makeover as well.

Most people would often prefer 2d to 3d graphics because it's nostalgic and reminds them of the good old days. (*sigh* the good old days...) Plus, with Starcraft's 2d graphics, it's much easier, albeit limited, to do the triggers.

A Starcraft rpg wouldn't be much of a good idea, considering the ENORMOUS number of lore clashes that Blizzard gave to WoW, it would be hell if they made a Starcraft MMORPG. (Imagine fighting a lvl 90 Tassadar, even though he died when the carrier crashed and blew up. Even if fun, it would still be quite impossible unless, the Protoss had developed a holographic simulator. I think the Terrans did it, considering when you finish the training level, the woman tells you that you are prepared for the real thing.)
 
Level 3
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
41
Oh yeah, you didnt have to press for every attack, AND not for every move. If you held the move button down it keeps going in the direction your mouse is. Attacking you just hold down the attack on the monster :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top