By Jim Rossignol on April 17th, 2009 at 10:32 am.
Starcraft II has changed substantially since I first played it almost two years ago, and yet it remains fundamentally the same game. That provides some real insight into how Blizzard work: they have a kind of pure idea of what they’re aiming to achieve, and the development process is one of repeated iteration: UI after UI, art style after art style, each wave of changes bringing them closer to the perfect balance of what’s playable and what’s beautiful. Anyway, I expect we’ll be awash with fancy trailers in a couple of months time, but for now I’m enjoying the sort of back-to-basics game footage approach Blizzard are taking. Below the jump is a multiplayer battle report, with the designers commentating on a game being played between Blizzard employees. It’s revealing stuff.
17/04/2009 at 11:02 Rabbitsoup says:
That’s the first bit of press for this game that actually piqued my interest. I thought the C+C/starcraft style was dead after CoH but that looked brilliant.
17/04/2009 at 11:13 Heliocentric says:
Revealing how rigid and stale the game is? Bleh… Maybe the single player will be awesome but their adherence to mirroring starcraft’s nature is off putting on the multiplayer side.
I’m just bitter that any attempts by me to play it online will be met by a torrent of perfected build patterns and rushes.:(
17/04/2009 at 11:19 Legandir says:
I have no interest in playing any games competitively, but if more competitive games were presented as professionally as this, i’d love to watch them.
17/04/2009 at 11:28 Mr Fishe says:
I’ve really no interest in SC but that commentary was brilliant. So earnestly geeky. Loved it.
17/04/2009 at 11:38 Tworak says:
You should check out gomtv.net if you’re interested in professional English SC commentary. There’s a bunch of guys doing amateur commentary on youtube as well.
These two guys playing in this Battle Report are obviously not as good as the professional Koreans or even the foreigners.
17/04/2009 at 11:40 mrmud says:
@heliocentric
Any RTS that has a tech tree will have a “perfect” initial build order and as long as you play in a competetive environment then that is the build that will be used.
17/04/2009 at 11:46 Rob says:
Destroying those rocks was a terrible idea! It didn’t give the Zerg an extra entry into the base so much as it gave the Terran an extra exit from it. So much for a ‘contain’.
Can’t wait to see the really good gamers get their hands on this, though. Been enjoying the amateur commentry on youtube mentioned by Tworak.
17/04/2009 at 11:57 SirKicksalot says:
That was almost as exciting as football!
And it had gore too!
17/04/2009 at 11:58 teo says:
If you think StarCraft’s multiplayer is ‘stale’ then you clearly don’t know too much about it. There’s no perfect build order either
There’s a reason the game is still being played and is still exciting
17/04/2009 at 11:59 Heliocentric says:
@mrmud Wow… deterministic much? Any RTS will have a perfect start? Not really, you played coh much? The application of doctrines there meant you dont know what the other players gambit is, but indeed its a terminal gambit that once taken cannot be reversed. Lending what in most RTS’s is high level play back to the lower levels, a sacraficial strategy. Meaning the learning curve is less abrupt, but indeed a player who chooses his doctrine first gets a more efficent gain of xp, but the player who chooses second gets to roll out counters. Indeed, obscuring what route you have taken is certainly viable. But i’m not saying Starcraft 2 isnt any of this and i wouldnt not until playing a demo, but starcraft 1 wasnt, indeed its only at the extremes of skill which the concepts like a gambit and informational warfare (letting them see units which are unlike the rest of your build) have any meaning.
17/04/2009 at 12:00 Azhrarn says:
@Tworak:
those professional Koreans seem barely human in terms of how blindingly fast those people are. And some of those are even inhumanly good compared to others of their kind. (80% lifetime win-rate Zerg-V-Zerg for Yai Dong for instance is mindboggling, I’ve watched quite a few games that he technically should have lost but still won, it’s insane)
It’s quite awe-inspiring to watch some of those games from 1st-person view. (ie from the players camera standpoint and not the omnipresent observer view)
Note, I’m not a competitive player myself, but watching the games is quite fun.
17/04/2009 at 12:03 Heliocentric says:
teo?
“perfected build patterns”
I mean not that its perfect, but the route of observation to a tactic has been perfected.
I think SC is stale because i’m not fast enough to play it at the level needed to pull the kind of strategies that starcraft multiplayer revolves around. Its still incredible, just not to joe average.
17/04/2009 at 12:04 Gap Gen says:
Ah, attack bunkers. How I’ve missed you.
17/04/2009 at 12:12 Tworak says:
@Azhrarn
Yeah, Jaedong’s 400 actions per minute is a sight to behold. :P
17/04/2009 at 12:26 DK says:
“Starcraft II has changed substantially since I first played it almost two years ago, and yet it remains fundamentally the same game.”
You mean Starcraft 2 has changed visually, but remains the same game they already released in 1998.
17/04/2009 at 12:37 Mal says:
That looks far more exciting than I imagined. I’ll never be good enough to play online though :(
17/04/2009 at 12:48 Vandelay says:
Will I for one am loving the look of this. I can’t think of any RTS that uses the style of Starcraft in recent years and none other that has perfected it so well. People here are calling it stale, but I really can’t name another RTS that is like the original Starcraft (C&C is probably the closest, but that is so light weight in comparison.)
I do like the style of this trailer, although a bit more explanation on some of the units being used would have been nice, particular the new ones to the series (for example, when Terran was building his third command center some new gathering unit appeared called Haulers, did he build those? did they come with his command center?) The new ability at the end looked a bit overpowered.
17/04/2009 at 12:48 Anarki says:
Yeah I love these Starcraft battle reports, downloaded the first one in HD and watched the whole thing. It’s a refreshing change from usual game trailers where you see 60 seconds of CGI and cut scenes yet NOTHING ABOUT HOW YOU ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!
17/04/2009 at 12:54 SwiftRanger says:
Graphics look a lot better than I thought they would, that replay production/research overlay is brilliant as well.
Yet, it still looks as exciting to play as trying an FPS with keyboard-only controls (which would take ‘skill’ as well…). I am more looking forward to the campaign rather than trying to ‘dance around’ all the time in online games. StarCraft II seems like a rare game all of a sudden, there aren’t that many conservative online RTSs anymore nowadays. I really hope Blizzard will lay off the 1998 gameplay ideas in the campaign but that luckily seems to be the case after the last BlizzCon showings.
17/04/2009 at 12:58 teo says:
I think to most casual people this looks pretty much like SC in 3D, but this game played nothing like StarCraft. They’ve removed the units that were most key to the balance and that would with proper use decide the game, and they kept the most iconic ones. The problem is that the charm of SC is in the interplay between ALL the units in the game. Even removing a single unit totally upsets the balance
It’s fine if they want to make a new game but they’re clinging onto the old game even though they’ve abandoned its most exciting units that provided the coolest gameplay. The new units they’ve come up with just aren’t as exciting, and they keep switching them out like they don’t know what to do.
They should either make a larger departure from the game or make it more similar to the old one. I remember them saying that their goal was to differentiate the races even more and I don’t think they’ve succeded. The terrans just won with a blob fighting a disorganized zerg blob. They were interchangeable.
17/04/2009 at 13:00 MetalCircus says:
I’d really love to see an RTS that has no base-building and is about pure tactics (i.e. no C+C style mass rushes), but in an accessable way.
17/04/2009 at 13:01 ChaosSmurf says:
If you think the game is still similar to the original, you should probably go back and play the original – or atleast watch it being played professionally. A lot of things have changed, it just looks and feels similar because it’s a sequel. It’s true to its roots, not a direct copy.
And in response to “Well the multiplayer looks boring” – its the same kind of multiplayer that’s present in the best selling, most balanced and best competitive RTS ever made: not a template I’d want to move away from.
17/04/2009 at 13:12 Trip SkyWay says:
Enjoyed that video, I’d be up for watching some more of that quality.
17/04/2009 at 13:15 Okami says:
I hate chess, because it’s gonne stale hundreds of years ago.
17/04/2009 at 13:17 Tei says:
How is this game different to …. Pokemon?
you have tiny monsters, lots, and make then fight each another, and is almost like a sport, and is focused on strategy, and as less luck as posible, just skill. This game is Pokemon: Protoss vs Zergs vs Terran, harvest then all!.
17/04/2009 at 13:21 drewski says:
They’re totally ripping off Dwarf Fortress.
Maybe.
17/04/2009 at 13:27 Rei Onryou says:
This is why I don’t play RTS online. All these different strategies in play at once that I had no idea existed. Red Alert tank rush is my limit.
17/04/2009 at 14:11 Bobsy says:
I, like most people who aren’t Korean (99% of the world’s population, 1% of the Starcraft player base) don’t give a monkey’s about multiplayer. Gimme story, gimmie fancy renders and even cutscenes.
17/04/2009 at 14:31 Tworak says:
Did you know that Starcraft has sold more than 9.5 million copies? 4.5 million of these in Korea.
Just saying.
17/04/2009 at 14:32 Heavy Weapons Guy says:
The graphics remind me of a bizarre hybrid between Red Alert 3 and Warcraft III.
Maybe I’m missing something but what’s the point of spending 100+USD on this, (original + expansions) for the exact same gameplay in a different coat of paint? It’s not like Blizzard is selling this game on the story, but rather the fact that it’s “THE SAME GAME FROM 1998!”.
17/04/2009 at 14:33 unclelou says:
don’t give a monkey’s about multiplayer. Gimme story, gimmie fancy renders and even cutscenes.
I am with you, I am with you.
17/04/2009 at 14:35 Respectable Gentlemen says:
@Tworak
Did you know that there are over a billion communist in the world? 20-odd million of them in North Korea?
Just saying.
17/04/2009 at 14:37 Tworak says:
@Respectable Gentlemen
Did you know that there are zero points in your post? Zero-odd of them in your post.
Just saying.
17/04/2009 at 14:38 Joshua says:
I’d really love to see an RTS that has no base-building and is about pure tactics (i.e. no C+C style mass rushes), but in an accessable way.
There are many, many RTS games that fit this mold, going all the way back to Sid Meier’s Gettysburg! (my fave) and Myth in the mid 1990s. I think even the recently released Dawn of War 2 and even Demigod are like this. Just do some research.
17/04/2009 at 14:57 Vandelay says:
Exactly Joshua, there are many no-base building RTSs. If you don’t mind a little base building but limited emphasis placed on it then there is even more. In fact, outside of Age of Empires style historical base building there aren’t many RTSs that actually put a strong focus on tech trees and buildings as well as actually being good RTSs, even fewer in the last few years.
The beauty of Starcraft is it has such simple ideas to grasp (unlike the confusing resource acquisition in Supreme Commander) but still manages to have many options within each race (unlike Command and Conquer games.) It isn’t simply a case of building up to the best unit, as all units in the game have there worth. It looks like the sequel will be following the same pattern; notice that marines and zerglings are still being used right up until the final moment.
17/04/2009 at 14:58 Jeremy says:
I’m fairly certain that some people on RPS don’t actually like video games at all. They just like complaining about how video games will never live up to their expectations.
17/04/2009 at 15:04 LionsPhil says:
Ugh. Too fast. Much like C&C3, it seems to be a game of how quickly you can micromanage annoying little units dancing back and forth and triggering specials.
17/04/2009 at 15:06 DD says:
Since StarCraft was so classic I am really looking forward to the sequel. I refuse to look at any content about StarCraft 2 until I have the freshly bought game in my hands.
17/04/2009 at 15:11 Anonymous says:
@Heliocentric and anyone else who is concerned about being steamrolled by Koreans in SC2…
Have you played Warcraft 3 recently? No mater how awful you are, there is always a mouth-breather who is worse than you at the game, guaranteed. You might need to play a few games for the ranking system to start pairing you up with them, but you would be surprised by how many utter idiots play RTS’s.
The thing is, most players are one or two trick ponies. They might seem like they have an unstoppable rush tactic, but if their tactic was actually bulletproof they’d be playing players of much higher skill than you. Most likely, they just copied some flavor of the month build that – if countered – they are incapable of answering.
Next time you lose to a common ‘cheap’ tactic, take a look at your replays. If you notice a ‘flavor of the month’ build that is really common when players pick a certain race, chances are, they are also making assumptions about how you will respond, and there is usually something you can do to hamstring them.
17/04/2009 at 15:21 Psychopomp says:
@Tworak
You win that round.
BRING ON THE NEXT TROLL TO COMBAT THE CHAMPION
Man, I want to NOT be excited about this after DoW2, Men of War, and Demigod.
But fuck me, I think Starcraft refuses to get old. It’s nice to see people still fall for the old “Build factory behind base, pump out siege tanks” strategy.
Couple that with baiting them with an small army of marines and firebats, then shell the shit outta their harvesters.
Only works on small maps though :(
17/04/2009 at 15:23 Tei says:
“The thing is, most players are one or two trick ponies. They might seem like they have an unstoppable rush tactic, but if their tactic was actually bulletproof they’d be playing players of much higher skill than you. Most likely, they just copied some flavor of the month build that – if countered – they are incapable of answering.”
Do these people ragequit then? I hate ragequitters.
17/04/2009 at 15:46 Zyrusticae says:
Maybe I’m missing something but what’s the point of spending 100+USD on this, (original + expansions) for the exact same gameplay in a different coat of paint? It’s not like Blizzard is selling this game on the story, but rather the fact that it’s “THE SAME GAME FROM 1998!”.
…What? Have you been paying any attention at all? The very reason they split the campaigns up was for the sake of the story! They wanted to make each campaign massive and epic, and decided it would be better to split the game up than force the fans to wait another 2+ years for it to come out. Sure, they’re also putting lots of emphasis on the multiplayer game, but considering their astonishingly massive SC multiplayer user base, I don’t blame ‘em for it. (Also note that there are many elements of the game exclusive to the single-player campaign, including the appearance of old units like the firebats, goliaths, and vultures). Also, that 100+ USD is going to be spread out over two or more years. Is $100 really that much to you over that large a span of time?
17/04/2009 at 15:52 Respectable Gentlemen says:
@Tworak
Blizzard Defense Force, Ho! Enjoy your mediocre RTS and bandwagon fallacy.
17/04/2009 at 15:55 Tworak says:
@Respectable Gentlemen
I certainly will. Thank you, good sir.
17/04/2009 at 16:02 Arturo says:
This looks boring. Haven’t we gotten past the same old base building/econ stuff from the old game? A good decade worth of RTS iteration and they come up with the same exact gameplay. This will degenerate into all of the same SC1 tactics/build orders within a few weeks after release.
I haven’t seen anything at all that makes this look like more than an expansion to BroodWar. How about garrisoned buildings, destructable terrain, (pile of rocks with HP counter does not count), less units and more tactics? Too many units on the screen and you will always lose to better micro. And there’s always some twitch-king who can click 100 times a second and get away with crazy things..
Say what you will about DOW2 (it also has its issues), but it’s much more interesting than this. It’s paced better, the units have enough time/health to be effectively controlled, and the lack of annoying base-building is just great.
17/04/2009 at 16:04 ChampionHyena says:
Oy. I feel jaded after Relic’s glorious sequence of strategic real-timery. Churning out a thousand builder units, sitting there and harvesting, then going off to pester enemy builder units. Then kite back when they counter-attack. Snore.
I dunno, I was never really impressed with Starcraft in the first place. I’m sure it was dramatically life-altering at the time, but I was sadly late to the party. Warcraft III was always my Blizzard strategy game (though not by much), what with leveling units and hirelings and picking up items and all its other RPG conceits.
I am sure that, like the original, Starcraft II’s single-player campaign will be the SHIT, especially now that it’s three times as long. I am not, however, looking forward to playing multiplayer and getting stomped by people who keep track of how many times they click the fucking mouse in a given match.
Matter of fact, I’m gonna get back to playing Dawn of War.
17/04/2009 at 16:11 Zyrusticae says:
Gawd, you people.
There’s plenty of other RTSes you can go to if you want new and novel (redundant?) game mechanics. The whole point of a sequel to StarCraft is to update the game with modern tech and mix things up just a tad, while creating the same brand of super-polished gameplay as seen in the original SC. If you don’t like Starcraft then you’re not going to like StarCraft 2. If you don’t like seeing old game mechanics polished to a blinding luster, then of course this isn’t for you.
Go play more CoH, or SoaSE, or DoW 2, or E:TW if you’re looking for something new. (Seriously, we don’t need more innovation. At least someone’s gotta take up the old guard, y’know…)
17/04/2009 at 16:29 BooleanBob says:
Lordy, that was awesome. I am genetically incapable of doing what an RTS demands of me but seeing professional-standard commentary of some other guys doing it is kind of magical. With their crazy multi-tasking, omniattentive, super-threading brains, jaguar-hands reactions and UI manipulation skills it’s a wonder that RTS players don’t rule the world.
17/04/2009 at 16:41 Mark says:
Feh. It’ll all come down to who’s memorized the most hotkeys anyway. That or who can click the fastest.
17/04/2009 at 16:49 Jeremy says:
Zyrusticae.. seriously! Everyone complains about what a game isn’t going to be more than any other media. I love that Starcraft 2 isn’t going to be a huge change on the formula, a good old fashioned RTS with attacks, counters, etc. How can we fault a game that never had any aspirations to change the gameplay, for not changing the gameplay? Do we complain that Pride and Prejudice wasn’t a good romantic comedy? No, we complain that it was a freakin 6 hour bore fest. But my point is, how can you possibly knock something for not being a genre it never claimed to be in the first place? This just doesn’t happen in other forms of media, only in video games because everyone has this going for them. The problem is, the formula gets changed and we automatically assume that because X game isn’t adhering to Z new formula, it is old, archaic and a waste of time.
17/04/2009 at 16:55 tackle says:
Lol! Rei Onryou, I was thinking the exact same thing about my limit!
17/04/2009 at 17:03 scopie says:
I have no sympathy for people who complain about getting pwn3d in public online gaming. Either get better, find a private server, or get a group of friends with similar skill levels to play with.
A bunch of guys and I get together every week or so and have some really entertaining and fun (if not skilled) games of starcraft.
If anyone of us goes on bnet we typically get dominated.
People who play the game a lot are good GET OVER IT
17/04/2009 at 17:16 Tei says:
@Jeremy: this is wrong, and I hate that gabe and tycho created it. Is like blaming alcohol for accident/rape/something awfull, ignoring your own will on the process. But I don’t blame 2 artist to think like that. Is normal for artist to have that mindset. Fortunally enough, is false, or something like Wikipedia will not exist.
17/04/2009 at 17:18 gryffinp says:
Wow. I would watch more of this. I could never wrap my head around the ridiculous levels of Meta in Starcraft multiplayer, but watching this was awesome.
17/04/2009 at 17:28 BooleanBob says:
@Tei:
They’re not trying to make justifications for the way people behave online. They’re explaining the factors that contribute to this behaviour, and they’re absolutely correct in so doing.
17/04/2009 at 17:33 Stella says:
I don’t see how playing an RTS game competitively could be any fun at all. I worked my way up to being almost decent at Age of Empires III, but every game requires so much mental and physical exertion that I’m pretty much exhausted by the end of it and because of that I only played like 2 games a month.
Contrast this with even “harcore” FPS games like Counter-Strike, which I can play at a competitive level while comfortably sitting back in my chair and pausing to sip a beer every once in a while.
17/04/2009 at 17:46 ChaosSmurf says:
For those of you that hate gametrailers (if those people still exist), now available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSwqDPNS7dM
17/04/2009 at 18:37 Trollwind says:
I can’t wait to play this! The first glimpses we got did little to get my appetite up, but watching the actual gameplay is awesome.
I do have to say I’m shocked that RPS put up something about Blizzard and there’s not a single WoW gayness comment. I guess the fanboys don’t play Starcraft anymore.
17/04/2009 at 18:47 DK says:
@Trollwind, those comments aren’t made anymore because they were right, and Blizzard corrected the art style. They’re slowly working their way towards the old gritty visuals.
17/04/2009 at 19:25 Pantsman says:
@Trollwind
Well, you seem to have brought one of them out of the woodwork.
17/04/2009 at 19:26 Tworak says:
They really need to change the creep colour back to purpleish. Though I guess they’ve already tested that and concluded blackish is more awesomeish.
“you’re such a blizzrd fanboi”
My kids will be named Blizzard1, Blizzard2, Blizzard3, Blizzard4, Blizzard5, Blizzard6, Blizzard7 and Blizzard8.
17/04/2009 at 19:31 S says:
Wow, that was fantastic! The new units add a ton to the game–those Nighthawks were instrumental in Kim’s victory. They mentioned their Hunter-Seekers were added just a few weeks ago–it might need balancing. Still, amazing game, control going back and forth.
17/04/2009 at 19:36 Serondal says:
The thing about multiplayer starcraft And wc3 that I enjoyed the most was the freegames where you played someone elses created map. I /never/ played a normal match because I just wasn’t fast enough. I’d get an entire army raiding my base when I didn’t even have 2 defenders yet ;P But when you’re playing a custom map you don’t always have to worry about that kind of thing. Like those awesome Starship troopers defence maps, the Lord of the Rings wars maps where you start off with X number of troops and get more every so often to fight epic battles with a few hero untis to help ya. Of course DOTA type maps were always fun. There were zombie survival maps, civilian maps where you lived in a city and had to do jobs and make money or be a drug dealer or the the police force and try to arrest the drug dealer ect. One where one of the players was the THING and everyone else had to try and figure out who it was while that player was murdering as many people as possible. Remember the paint ball matches where you get a ghost with 1 hp more or less and try to kill other people?
17/04/2009 at 19:45 Jeremy says:
@Tei, BooleanBob has the right idea, it isn’t justification, it is just proof that people will say things or carry on conversations that they normally wouldn’t because of anonymity.. unless you know people that say “OMG WTFBBQ, THAT GAEM IF EFINNNG GEHY” in real life. In which case, you must find new friends :)
Um Tworak, I’m already naming my child Blizzard5.. so back off.
17/04/2009 at 19:46 alseT says:
@Serondal
That’s what I’m most excited about in SC2. WC3 ate so many hours of my life with all the awesome kinds of maps, of which I think SWAT Aftermath was the most technically accomplished.Unfortunately the engine showed its limits so here’s hoping SC2′s will give birth to more amazing things.
17/04/2009 at 19:54 Mad Doc MacRae says:
I’m not good enough for MP, but I’ll probably get the terran game for the campaign. I was amused that right at the start the commentator goes “like all good starcraft maps, this map is mirrored” which seems like a boring (if perhaps effective design decision).
17/04/2009 at 20:09 Joshua says:
I gave up RTS games almost completely after I gave War3 an honest go but was still little more than rubbish online.
I mean, RTS games are TOUGH online. Likewise, I take a beating on SF4 every night since I got hooked on fighters. My years (12+) of playing FPS games online were not nearly this stressful.
But, you know, nobody ever says a person has to be good at every game. If you don’t want to take the time to be good then play something else.
17/04/2009 at 20:12 Corbeau says:
Well, that killed my interest in SC2 entirely. It’s Starcraft with some new shiny stuff added. That’s what you’d expect from a sequel, but their talk about more mass battles and strategy actually had me interested for a while. Obviously they’re sticking with their cash cow of micromanagement, which doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
17/04/2009 at 20:18 Serondal says:
Well it makes it more fair and balanced if both teams have the same terrian resources ect. Though it would be interesting to have a 3 player free for all map where each starting position was diffrent based on race and required diffrent tactics to use but over all was still balanced.
17/04/2009 at 20:26 Heliocentric says:
To people who think starcraft is the pinacle of rts i say…
Coh coh coh coh coh coh chooo choooo!
Get aboard the coh train.
17/04/2009 at 20:36 Anon says:
It seems most people who claim that RTSes are merely about who can click the fastest, who has the fastest reaction time, etc. have never played an RTS in multiplayer before.
17/04/2009 at 20:36 Serondal says:
CoH was ultimately forgettable. It has some good graphics but nothing really new to offer. I played it about 100 times then uninstalled it, so it is better than most but Starcraft has never been uninstalled from my computers since it was first installed when I bought it on release date way back when (I got the Protoss box hehe) Other than to upgrade or reinstall the comp and then it is okay gone for a second :P That having been said I’m not buying starcraft 2 or any new COH games for that matter. I’m stuck on Men of War, something honestly new and interesting in RTS gaming. Make me a Starcraft where I can aim the marines gun and get head shots I’ll start playing it.
17/04/2009 at 20:38 Serondal says:
BTW the units in the top picture of this post look almost exactly like the units from C&C 3. I can’t remember what the unit is caled off the top of my head, but they’re the ones that can be upgraded with teleporter packs and are used for assaulting. Looks almost 100% the same to me :P
17/04/2009 at 20:52 psyk says:
“Make me a Starcraft where I can aim the marines gun and get head shots I’ll start playing it.” wow just wow the ability to control one unit and shoot its weapon isnt what rts games are about but meh each to their own.
17/04/2009 at 21:01 Serondal says:
It wasn’t what RTS games are about, until now :P I would be just as happy if each unit in the game had the same damage model you find in Men of War or Soliders. Where it is possible for them to BE head shot. I’m tired of all this wack wack, I do 10 damage to you, you do 8 damage to me trading blows shit ,it is so ancient but is still used. Blizzard if anyone could take Men of War’s style of game play and make it huge. Hit points don’t make sense any more, they were used to be symoblic for a persons ability to take damage, but now we have the technology to make real living breathing people on the battle field that die because someone did something that killed them, not just becaue they ran out of HPs. I know men of war still uses HPs to some degree , that’s why i’m saying it is up to blizzard or large companies to really fully explore this idea.
That’d make an interesting game mechinic, what is the difference between a space marine and a Zerg? well the marine has better armor but dies when that armor is pierced, the zerg has better good armor but it can take hit after hit because it’s internal organs are redundant and allow it to take a lot of damage before it stops fighting. not HPs damage but actually organs destroyed ! /rant off
17/04/2009 at 21:02 Paul says:
Wow, I really surprised by how enjoyable that was.
17/04/2009 at 21:43 MrFake says:
@Tei: I agree with you about Penny Arcade’s little misrepresentation. Try this instead. First pie chart applies.
I see far more people complaining about trolls and fuckwads than actual trolls and fuckwads. Trolls and fuckwads are more memorable, obviously. And now I’ve said “fuckwads” 3 times. Now 4.
Couldn’t say anything about fuckwads (5) and Starcraft, though. The normal games got too competitive for me. Does Battle.net still have the huge fan base for wacky user created maps, though, because those were… fantaseximagic? Yeah, there were maps where you could play a stripped-down RPG, so that’s a good word for it. If Starcraft II has a similarly powerful map creator, then I’m in.
17/04/2009 at 22:05 Tworak says:
@MrFake
From the TL Q&A
“Q: Is it possible to create maps which wrap around? So that the right edge leads back onto the left, creating a spherical space?
A: Yes, it is currently possible to create a map in which units can move from one side to the other, though there isn’t coding provided yet that would allow units to shoot from one side to the other.
Q: We have heard many times that the map editor is capable of almost anything, but does this hold true for melee as well? Will you be able to implement map related features, such as different types of terrain (slowing, damage over time, energy regenerating, etc.), portals, or bridges and such, for ladder/melee maps?
A: Yes, players will be able to create special areas on the map as mentioned, though players will probably have to create them using invisible objects with those properties rather than have those properties be tied with the actual visual texture itself.”
17/04/2009 at 22:38 teko says:
Very nice commentary. Anyone has links to where I can download similar Battle Reports in HD? Or at least higher quality than the embed video…
17/04/2009 at 22:39 EyeMessiah says:
This is nothing compared to Starcraft 2. Oh wait.
18/04/2009 at 00:37 Severian says:
I don’t know what’s more entertaining: listening to that stellar gameplay commentary, or reading the deliciously snarky and clever quips by fellow RPS’ers about online RTS inanity. Sigh… sometimes I wish I had all the time in the world to learn how to play these games well, and then I remember my dog and sunshine and burritos. I almost think that releasing videos like this will scare away us “serious” gamers who are wary of multiplayer RTS ’cause of our inferiority complexes (and I’m not even thinking about the Koreans).
18/04/2009 at 00:40 Arathain says:
Man… I kind of want to be good at multiplayer RTSes. They look like fun. But I really don’t have the patience to learn to micro like that. I’m not sure I’m even really capable of it.
I’m surprised how fun that was to watch.
18/04/2009 at 00:40 Thants says:
You can get the 678mb version using blizzard’s downloader app here: http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/2.xml
18/04/2009 at 00:47 psyk says:
Anyway to dl for later viewing, would look but the site is slowing down my firefox to a crawl so cant get to the source.
18/04/2009 at 01:04 Paul B says:
I can’t count the amount of time I wasted on the original Starcraft when it first came out. In fact I spent more time on Starcraft, playing against my room-mate, then I did on studying when I was at Uni (probably why I was kicked out). Ah, fond memories…
If they can get the single-player right, I’ll be getting this. I loved the original game’s campaign plus Brood War’s. I’m rubbish at multiplayer so please Blizzard, remember to focus on the single-player ;)
18/04/2009 at 01:06 En Taro Milk Tea says:
Oh man, the Nighthawk is an amazing upgrade visually from what it was originally (I forget the name, but it looked like a flying, pronged crane).
18/04/2009 at 02:54 Spaceman-Spiff says:
@Thants: Thanks :)
18/04/2009 at 07:19 Generico says:
I played Starcraft and the Broodwar expansion probably every day for about 3 years, and I can’t wait to get my hands on this game. I’m so glad to see that they’re not messing with the fundamentals and not trying to fix what isn’t broken, or “innovate” just for the sake of doing something different.
As far as it being stale, I can’t disagree more. There’s a reason that Starcraft is still so popular, and it’s because it doesn’t get old. Name one other RTS that is as popular as Starcraft more than 10 years after release. They clearly got the formula right the first time, so why mess with it. There are always new strategies and new tactics being utilized, and there is no one build order or tactic that is always effective. Starcraft is RTS sugar, it doesn’t get stale.
Severian
Sigh… sometimes I wish I had all the time in the world to learn how to play these games well, and then I remember my dog and sunshine and burritos. I almost think that releasing videos like this will scare away us “serious” gamers who are wary of multiplayer RTS ’cause of our inferiority complexes (and I’m not even thinking about the Koreans).
On another note, since when do “serious gamers” and “sunshine and burritos” belong in the same paragraph? I’m afraid I have bad news my friend. You are not hardcore ;).
18/04/2009 at 09:25 ShardPhoenix says:
I’m interested in the multiplayer, but for those who only care about single player, it does sound like things are going to be pretty interesting there too. Apparently there are going to be multiple missions/branches you can choose, and you can somehow choose/buy extra units/upgrades to start missions with. There’s also going to be some sort of adventure-game-like component where you control Raynor walking around his ship talking to people between missions.
Plus, at least some of the units from SC1 that aren’t in SC2′s multiplayer will show up in single player.
18/04/2009 at 10:00 Okami says:
I am angry because the new Wolverine movie stars Wolverine. Why can it not be a Batman movie? I like Batman a lot more than Wolverine. Also, they have not changed Wolverine in the last ten years. He still has claws and regeneration. Why doesn’t he have a cape? Or is a woman.
I smolder with generic rage.
(last sentence copyright penny arcade)
18/04/2009 at 12:27 Ecko says:
Holy crap, this has got the snobs out on display. As far as I can see, any of the RTS’ I had previously thought were a good game, are in fact not. I’d be interested to see which RTS games you lot actually like.
And “This is nothing compared to Starcraft 2. Oh wait.” Heh, exactly.
18/04/2009 at 13:12 Mil says:
@Okami: or, as Penny Arcade put it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/04/
(Not the same strip as earlier in this thread).
18/04/2009 at 14:12 Spanish Technophobe says:
This vid made me want to download Starcraft from my Blizzard account, which I barely use, and get playing again. I never really got the appeal–too twitchy–but seeing people who play halfway competent has inspired me.
Gah–and I have work to do, too…
18/04/2009 at 14:22 A:\Big.bat says:
Looks bloody brilliant.
18/04/2009 at 18:13 Butler` says:
Can’t wait for this. I’m long since bored of competitive WC3 (pretty much since DoTA killed the scene…) and C&C3 was only a mild distraction.
18/04/2009 at 18:27 Butler` says:
I don’t see why there’s so many people unwilling to learn how to play multiplayer. All it takes it a little patience and commitment.
Especially with the comparisons to FPS. Were you really topping the score boards on CS1.5 the first time you played it?
RTS is certainly more intimate and focused, I suppose that’s what people have a problem with. They can’t sit back and let others do the work for them, then get a share of the glory :p
18/04/2009 at 20:16 Jetsetlemming says:
Starcraft frustrates me so, but in spite of my experiences with the games that trailer made me wanna play SC2 really badly. So much focus on buildings and mechs for the Terran players, and the spawn rates for zergs seemed to be significantly increased so building up a massive army of zerglings is easier and faster. Also no 12 unit selection cap.
I’m afraid I’ll end up buying this and then not playing it because I suck horribly at it. D:
18/04/2009 at 20:48 Tei says:
I will buy the damn game, for the damn singleplayer part.
19/04/2009 at 03:45 Jambe says:
CoH the pinnacle of the genre? Pff. Total Annihilation (albeit with custom AIs) was the pinnacle, and it’s been downhill ever since! If you like RTT pewpew and totally-free, I’d suggest checking out the The Spring Project. There are some nice 3D TA-inspired games built on the engine.
And Starcraft, CoH, WiC et all are RTS titles? Pff… Far be it from me to suggest that “moving specifically-selected units about small maps” is “tactics” and not “strategy”. Strategy is more grand a term than tactics in my mind, and its use to describe titles like Starcraft strikes me as a misappropriation.
disclaimer: m’tongue may be ever-so-slightly in cheek here
19/04/2009 at 13:40 Sunjammer says:
I dunno guys, is it not okay to not like the game but still respect it? I’ll repost a comment on this that i put over at giantbomb
I think something that made SC playable when it came out, was that massing units was an acceptable tradeoff for what was occationally utterly abysmal pathing and a sense of momentum that was really heavily tied into army size. To me, a tank being blocked from progress by a single infantry unit is hilarity itself, but this tile based abstraction is what apparently stands at the foundation of SC as a competitive sport, much like hitboxes and area control abstractions are par for Street Fighter 2 tourney play.
Back then, that was okay, but i stopped thinking of the units on the map as CHARACTERS very quickly once i joined a clan and played a lot of online. I just thought the game turned into numbercrunching. I remember a friend with a unit damage/hp/cost spreadsheet on his bedroom wall, and it was freaking me the fuck out. Some people just really get into that kind of game, but to me it removes the personality and turns it into squares bumping into one another on top of a bunch of other squares as numbers tick up and down. It’s just so depressing to me as a player.
WC3s big innovation of SC for me was lower unit cap and more “intimate” micro. Micro in SC felt like i needed to work out beforehand. WC3 let me concentrate on less. CoH does this as well, less units, more abilities, and while i think CoH is boring as hell, it really helps the game experience to have to actually care about each unit as a long term investment rather than just fodder. DoW2 takes this to an extreme, and i’m totally in love with that model of intense micro with fewer units. It simply allows for split second tactical plays that don’t feel artificial or contrived. SC2 looks like it is aiming to please SC players first and foremost, and i kind of worry about those dudes, because they’re hella weird in terms of what they want from the game experience.
I won’t buy it. But i’ll happily look at it from the distance and admire the game. It just won’t be that fun for me to play.
21/04/2009 at 16:59 luckystriker says:
Obviously it’s far too early to tell whether SC2 will ever approach the perfection that is SC.
I’m an avid RTS player and more specifically a SC player and it boggles my mind how any RTS aficionado can think SC wasn’t the greatest of all time.
Maybe it’s all the Korean Pro SC i watch? I swear, it’s one of the most exciting professional sports on TV!
Come on, watch this recent game between Shuttle and ForGG and tell me that wasn’t exciting! http://www.gomtv.net/videos/639
22/04/2009 at 01:38 SPOONS says:
Hate them for leaving all the zerg stuff out intentionally. Like when the terran floated his nighthawks over the zerg base and they were talking about it but they barely showed them on the edge of the screen then panned away. The zerg dude also conceded before the terrans could get into his main and see his tech buildings. I kept wanting to scroll over. Looks ill though, I’m absolutely gonna try myself at some ranked play on b-net, they’re not all pros
28/04/2009 at 19:42 Spanish Technophobe says:
luckystriker, I got a pretty strong Christopher Guest vibe from the commentary on that vid. Cool, just the same.