Starcraft 2

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:24 pm

In case you didn't know; it comes out on April 30th - got mine pre-ordered.

:):)

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:13 pm

In case you didn't know, the single-player campaign will be split up in three. Besides that, looking forward to it!

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:18 pm

Nice to know, thanks for the heads up, eventhough I never played any starcraft game....lol...

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:47 am

Originally posted by Maarschalk
Nice to know, thanks for the heads up, eventhough I never played any starcraft game....lol...

Aye, Rami, I know that it's split into three, one for each race. Starts off with the humans, but it is a highly extended split.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting stuck into it.

Knight Rider · Post by **Knight Rider** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:09 am

O.K. I have to say, I never played Starcraft. I was browsing and saw the review of Starcraft II, especially when they said, the developers invested 100 million dollars in the game. Now I saw the graphics, and was not that impressed, and I understand this game is a space strategist dream, but can someone tell me where did that 100 million go?

Here's the link to the story:

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plug ... l-/1405352

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:04 am

100 million? That's not that unique. GTA IV cost the same thing and many in the future will end up around that mark. That went into paying 300 people to work for 3-5 years, motion-capturing every unit, hiring orchestras, making trailers, cinematics, marketing the game a lot, securing places at big game festivals, paying playtesters and upgrading servers. Blizzard has the money, and they're not saving any costs to position Starcraft II as the best strategy game in the history of mankind. There's no game that perfected balance as the first game did, and based on the beta, I as a game designer have full faith that they've done this again.

What is unique is that they invested this much in a PC title. I can only assume they're hoping nostalgia will stop many of those criminals *ahum* pirates from 'freely trying' the game 'for a while', 'as a consumer right' or something. Of course, the userbase focus on multiplayer will help in combatting piracy. On top of that, the mouth-to-mouth for this game is similar to Modern Warfare 2's, so they might be onto something.

The beta was awesome and I really can't wait to get into that singleplayer campaign. The cinematics look slick and the in-between-missions gameplay might just offer a lot of depth.

Hell, it's about time.

[Edited on 21-7-2010 by tha_rami]

Knight Rider · Post by **Knight Rider** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:31 am

Wow...That's one heck of a bank roll. That sounds like what David Cameron did with Avatar. Titanic was such a huge hit for him, and he gambled that Avatar would be just as big. He did recoupe his massive investment and then some.

This game has really peaked my interest. What type of player would you have to be to totally enjoy this game?

Does it fit the typical space flight sim genre?

[Edited on 7-21-2010 by Knight Rider]

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:32 am

It's more RPG than flight sim. Saying that, I haven't seen Starcraft II yet, so have no idea what's in it. the launch date has been set back to July 27th, so, hopefully, I should be receiving my copy in a few days. It'll keep me going until Mercenaries launches!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:46 am

RPG... space flight sim.... *twitch*

It's an RTS, people. Here's a picture:

MaceUK · Post by **MaceUK** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:27 pm

Originally posted by Knight Rider
O.K. I have to say, I never played Starcraft. I was browsing and saw the review of Starcraft II, especially when they said, the developers invested 100 million dollars in the game. Now I saw the graphics, and was not that impressed, and I understand this game is a space strategist dream, but can someone tell me where did that 100 million go?

Here's the link to the story:

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plug ... l-/1405352

I agree with you. It looks like a generic RTS from 10 years ago to me and the gameplay videos look awful. Never played the first Starcraft so I cannot understand what the massive hype is about with htis game.

The only answer I get is that it is balanced (?) and how that makes a game good I don't know. I will play a demo and see if I can work it out but I keep thinking I'm missing something.

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:25 pm

Yes, I agree for a 100 million bucks you would expect much more from a game that cost between 20 and 50 bucks....Like a real Space flight simulator....LOL..

Post by **Marvin** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:26 pm

Ditto. RTS is soooooo 1990s.

Knight Rider · Post by **Knight Rider** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:42 pm

Originally posted by Marvin
Ditto. RTS is soooooo 1990s.

I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but you're right, it does have that 1990's feel to it, nothing that stood out for me.

This is a great Testament to Vice, you don't need a 100 million Bucks to make a great game.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:57 pm

Originally posted by MaceUK
Originally posted by Knight Rider
O.K. I have to say, I never played Starcraft. I was browsing and saw the review of Starcraft II, especially when they said, the developers invested 100 million dollars in the game. Now I saw the graphics, and was not that impressed, and I understand this game is a space strategist dream, but can someone tell me where did that 100 million go?

Here's the link to the story:

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plug ... l-/1405352
I agree with you. It looks like a generic RTS from 10 years ago to me and the gameplay videos look awful. Never played the first Starcraft so I cannot understand what the massive hype is about with htis game.

The only answer I get is that it is balanced (?) and how that makes a game good I don't know. I will play a demo and see if I can work it out but I keep thinking I'm missing something.

If you've never played it then it would be difficult to understand anything about it, wouldn't it?

Knight Rider · Post by **Knight Rider** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:34 pm

I'm not saying it's not a great game, if you are into RTS games, and obviously it has a crazy following, I'm just trying to understand the hype, and that 100 Million Dollar bank roll.

With a hundred million to play with, you would think the graphics would at least look more state of the art. To me it looks more arcade, and 1990's RTS style.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:43 pm

I would think that the money was spent more on the gameplay than the scenery. After all, much of the scenery/map, in such games are covered by the fog of war, you need some unit in the vicinity to see what's there.

The attraction, for me anyway, is having to use tactics that will enable me to survive long enough to think up a strategy for defeating whatever enemy is set against me. If the original Starcraft, and its expansion set, are anything to go by, the action is swift, and fierce. Keeps my old brain box working.

MaceUK · Post by **MaceUK** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:44 pm

Originally posted by Knight Rider
I'm not saying it's not a great game, if you are into RTS games, and obviously it has a crazy following, I'm just trying to understand the hype, and that 100 Million Dollar bank roll.

With a hundred million to play with, you would think the graphics would at least look more state of the art. To me it looks more arcade, and 1990's RTS style.

Exactly, it looks like a modded SC1. And the more I look into SC2 all the fans have to say is 'it is balanced'.....

? So make it look good and balanced, make it different to a 1990's RTS and balanced. It just looks to me like they have seriously cashed in on the name and I do not hold Blizzard in any high esteem just because they make on eof the biggest and in my books most boring MMO's out there.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:50 pm

I tend to stay away from the MMOs - as a newbie you get slaughtered. But, boring!!!!!:o Maybe, at my age, I don't get bored so easy as you young 'uns!

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:00 pm

Anybody who thinks $100 milion was spent on that game, needs to contact me ASAP !
I have some shares in Eastern Airlines that I will sell cheap!
Seriously!

Knight Rider · Post by **Knight Rider** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:24 pm

Rofl

:P:P:P

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:31 pm

Well, to explain the hype then:

In 1998, realtime strategy was big. Among others, there was Warcraft by Blizzard Entertainment, Command and Conquer by Westwood Studios and Age of Empires by Ensemble Studios.

Then, Blizzard Entertainment released Starcraft, which basically was like Warcraft - just science fiction. It featured three distinct races with each unit being completely unique to their race, and each race had distinct tech trees and playing styles. The human Terran played semi-defensively, while the alien Protoss focussed on powerful units with high costs. The alien Zerg played in a heavily offensive way. The game featured a full campaign with 'heroes' and in-between mission conversations between said heroes.

While that in itself revolutionized RTS, the main achievement in the game was near-perfect balance. None of the races offered particular advantage for all players, although each player grew to love one of the races and proclaim it the 'best'. In reality, however, such a race would only adhere to the players' preferred style of playing, and a more offensive player would instead favor the parasitic Zerg.

Not only did the game become best selling game, it is still upheld nowadays as 'the best RTS-game'. Due to its perfect balance, it is widely used in e-Sports (sponsored commercial gaming competitions) and e-Cups. The South Korean industry is even said to have been kickstarted by the game, and South Korea still maintains a large part in Starcrafts playerbase.

Starcraft is one of the only games 'to have been in space', it was taken along by an astronaut on the STS-96 mission. The game is applied in academic courses on balancing, math and in military US Airforce Aerospace Basic Course training for cooperative planning in stressful situations.

Starcraft II, based on what we've seen, seems to take the traditional Starcraft into High Definition, with new units, strategies, tech-trees, environments and environmental gameplay elements, rotatable camera, the same emphasis on story and characters.

To make an analogy, it would be as if someone is about to release Elite IV, with Vice's attention for community, the graphics of a AAA-studio, a 100 million budget and the experience you remember from back in the days but better, with improved and renewed features you all expect to see in contemporary space sims.

It's not really a surprise RTS-players have been waiting for this game since 1998.

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:12 pm

Thanks for the info Tha_rami. I'm just not into RTS......and ofcourse everything is relative and justifiable from ones own relative perspective. I'm not saying that you are trying to justify the cost of StarCraft but the info you gave us can be relatively used to do so...LOL..

:P:P:P:P:P.

[Edited on 7-21-2010 by Maarschalk]

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:10 pm

BAH! We can only imagine what kind of game Vice would produce with 100 Mill.
In fact, I don't think Vice could spend that much even if he wanted!Look what he does does now on a shoestring and tell me what more $10,000 would do, much less 100 mill!
I just don't believe it!

MaceUK · Post by **MaceUK** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:10 pm

Originally posted by tha_rami
Well, to explain the hype then:

In 1998, realtime strategy was big. Among others, there was Warcraft by Blizzard Entertainment, Command and Conquer by Westwood Studios and Age of Empires by Ensemble Studios.

Then, Blizzard Entertainment released Starcraft, which basically was like Warcraft - just science fiction. It featured three distinct races with each unit being completely unique to their race, and each race had distinct tech trees and playing styles. The human Terran played semi-defensively, while the alien Protoss focussed on powerful units with high costs. The alien Zerg played in a heavily offensive way. The game featured a full campaign with 'heroes' and in-between mission conversations between said heroes.

While that in itself revolutionized RTS, the main achievement in the game was near-perfect balance. None of the races offered particular advantage for all players, although each player grew to love one of the races and proclaim it the 'best'. In reality, however, such a race would only adhere to the players' preferred style of playing, and a more offensive player would instead favor the parasitic Zerg.

Not only did the game become best selling game, it is still upheld nowadays as 'the best RTS-game'. Due to its perfect balance, it is widely used in e-Sports (sponsored commercial gaming competitions) and e-Cups. The South Korean industry is even said to have been kickstarted by the game, and South Korea still maintains a large part in Starcrafts playerbase.

Starcraft is one of the only games 'to have been in space', it was taken along by an astronaut on the STS-96 mission. The game is applied in academic courses on balancing, math and in military US Airforce Aerospace Basic Course training for cooperative planning in stressful situations.

Starcraft II, based on what we've seen, seems to take the traditional Starcraft into High Definition, with new units, strategies, tech-trees, environments and environmental gameplay elements, rotatable camera, the same emphasis on story and characters.

To make an analogy, it would be as if someone is about to release Elite IV, with Vice's attention for community, the graphics of a AAA-studio, a 100 million budget and the experience you remember from back in the days but better, with improved and renewed features you all expect to see in contemporary space sims.

It's not really a surprise RTS-players have been waiting for this game since 1998.

Thanks that explains some of the background but would you say that SC2 is just a prettied up version of the first game? What does it bring new to the table?

SC1 may have been ground breaking in 1998 when as you say there was C&C etc but the RTS genre has come a long way since then. Maybe it has come full circle and needs a retro style?

I am not slating it I just can't see what everyone else is seeing

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:45 pm

Won't really know if it's just a prettied up version of the original SC, have to wait until it's released, won't we? It's like slagging off ice cream without ever tasting it just because you don't like Mars bars!

Save you asking Maars, they're a lot different from Jupiter bars - and you don't get any booze in 'em.