It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)StarCraft II Commercial(58 posts)(58 posts)
(58 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 22, 2010
avatar
Fenixp: No. It's good gameplay for multiplayer since it balances easily and leaves just a little to luck, however as for a single-player experience it's heavily out-dated. I have played Starcraft recently and 'the little guys down there' weren't fighting. They were standing in lines until one of them fell over. It might have felt realistic and stuff back when SC was released, however I have no reason to NOT condemn it today, when Relic shows how to make atmospheric RTSes.
That doesn't really mean I do not understand the decision. It's better balanced that way, important stuff for atmosphere like sync-kills take control of units from you for a while... But, from replays I've been watching, I've noticed they haven't even bothered adding things like units taunting each other, or just them screaming in battle. Or at least changing what they say according to their health. Little things? Yeah. But important for me. There's no cover system, no at least semi-tactic movement of AI-units... Nothing.
As I said, I understand the decision of making the game 'hardcore' with as little shinies distracting from clickfest as possible. But I just don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer and I am sure SP experience would be so much better if Relic did the gameplay. Because I've played SC1 for story. I've basically suffered trough the most missions.

Cover systems work well in Relic games, but that's because they have no aerial units, which Starcraft does. In fact, many units in the Starcraft games (such as siege tanks and the aforementioned flying units) wouldn't be able to be in the Dawn of War games because they are incompatible with cover in games as it is now.
I'm not nearly as sure as you are that the single player would be superior if Relic crafted it. Dawn of War 2 + Chaos Rising are fun, but the single player doesn't have much in terms of variety. Essentially every mission is land, capture reinforcement points, optionally capture/destroy additional objective, kill boss enemy at the end. Starcraft II single player looks to have much more variety in single player gameplay, like rising and falling lava, as well as other gameplay variations that have been revealed.
As for units taunting each other and sync-kills, while it may be cool the first ten times I see it, it quickly becomes as routine as normal kills and sound effects after a while for me.
Personally, they could have released Starcraft 2 with just the map editor and I still would have bought it. The replayability for me is in the custom missions.
Posted July 22, 2010
avatar
cpugeek13: And WC3 is a much better game than SC. Most of SC's appeal lies in its nostalgic value. The RTS medium has made so many positive advances since then (like WC3), but SC2 ignores most of them. A lot has happened in 12 years. ..

I'd say this parks a lot closer to ignorant fanboy flaming than what I wrote.
The trailers that have been released so far mostly depict the story so far, with a few hints at what's to come.
Oh and WC3 did very little to advance the RTS medium. What the fuck are you blabbering about?
To sum up, you don't know shit about shit. Pull up your pants.
Posted July 22, 2010
avatar
PoSSeSSeDCoW: ...

Well actually, Company of Heroes with the very same cover system is using artillery quite often, and I don't see how air units would be undoable: the best units to ignore cover ever, however unable to properly track targets in buildings.
Sync kills, taunting and acknowledgements being routine? Well PRECISELY. It blends well with the whole genre that you probably won't even really notice it except for a few extreme cases. But when units are sync-killing each other here and there in the fierce battle, it instantly looks more varied and interesting than when they all do the same movements at almost the same times. As well as when they're shouting with pain or at each other.
I'm not arguing with you, as for the cover system, there's plenty of OTHER reason why not include it in SCII. But the fact that it's profitable and will appeal to hardcore players doesn't mean I agree with it. But the dynamic unit acknowledgements really do a lot for the feel and the atmosphere, and really aren't THAT hard to do.
Still, it all comes down to what we expect of the game, of course. And I will be buying the game as well. I just don't like approach Blizzard chose.
Posted July 22, 2010
avatar
Fenixp: Well actually, Company of Heroes with the very same cover system is using artillery quite often, and I don't see how air units would be undoable: the best units to ignore cover ever, however unable to properly track targets in buildings.
Sync kills, taunting and acknowledgements being routine? Well PRECISELY. It blends well with the whole genre that you probably won't even really notice it except for a few extreme cases. But when units are sync-killing each other here and there in the fierce battle, it instantly looks more varied and interesting than when they all do the same movements at almost the same times. As well as when they're shouting with pain or at each other.
I'm not arguing with you, as for the cover system, there's plenty of OTHER reason why not include it in SCII. But the fact that it's profitable and will appeal to hardcore players doesn't mean I agree with it. But the dynamic unit acknowledgements really do a lot for the feel and the atmosphere, and really aren't THAT hard to do.
Still, it all comes down to what we expect of the game, of course. And I will be buying the game as well. I just don't like approach Blizzard chose.

Fair enough.
Posted July 22, 2010
avatar
Gundato: No, it is just about capturing the essence of the plot.
Dawn of War's trailers are all INSANELY awesome, but they tend not to show the clicking and the like.
Most FPSs only show the cutscenes (sometimes pre-rendered) and set pieces.
Gasp, shock, and amazement. Advertising isn't 100% truthful. Next thing, you guys are going to start complaining that women don't actually rape you in the street if you use Axe Deoderant.

You seem to be associating dislike with surprise. I am not surprised.
Posted July 23, 2010
Starcraft related question that has nothing to do with the commercial but in my opinion is undeserving of it's own thread so I'm hijacking this one for a bit:
If I'm in latin america and I played the beta on a 1 meg DSL connection and didn't have any lag issues while playing with american and canadian friends, now that the gates will be opened and the servers flooded, would I have lag issues if I buy the american version? I'm getting a warning that if I buy the american download version I could face lag issues.
I honestly have more american and canadian online gamer friends than I do latin american ones. No point in buying the spanish version, plus translations aren't always that good.
Posted July 23, 2010
avatar
El_Caz: If I'm in latin america and I played the beta on a 1 meg DSL connection and didn't have any lag issues while playing with american and canadian friends, now that the gates will be opened and the servers flooded, would I have lag issues if I buy the american version? I'm getting a warning that if I buy the american download version I could face lag issues.

Assuming that you will have a longer traceroute to the servers if you play the american version, I guess you would very easily experience higher latency.
Try tracerouting some WOW login servers and see what you get in average ping. You can probably expect the same in SC2.
Posted July 23, 2010
Most people who might play the game likely know the commercial is not what the game will be like, and hopefully before someone drops $50 to $100 bucks for the game they would actually look into it a bit (e.g. screenshots, websites, etc.).
I never cared for the limited number of units you can control so I personally played the first SC only a few missions in and have never played again. I think Total Annihilation was produced around the same time (not sure though) and I liked how it played much better, so I spent my time playing it.
Posted July 23, 2010
Who the hell wants cover system in SC2. Its a fast paced RTS game, where average matches tend to last a dozen minutes at best, not a long, long tactical RTS game like COH and others like it.
Posted July 23, 2010
avatar
KavazovAngel: Who the hell wants cover system in SC2. Its a fast paced RTS game, where average matches tend to last a dozen minutes at best, not a long, long tactical RTS game like COH and others like it.

... What? Have you ever actually played CoH multiplayer? Or Dawn of War 2 for that matter? I'm not saying DoW 2 is an example of perfect gamedesign, it's too repetitive for that, but every mission lasts about 20 minutes, and those are the longer ones!
edit: Hell, DoW II even removed basebuilding from MP so it can focus more on fast-paced tactics directly on the battlefield!
Post edited July 23, 2010 by Fenixp
Posted July 23, 2010
And to provide further support for the fear that the Starcraft formula might actually be a bit too dated, ActiBlizzard has said that there will be no reviews prior to launch.
There are reasons for this (Battle.net is a big part of this, and a major update is going up with the game) and reasons against this (the SP doesn't need that).
And a more cynical person might argue that Blizzard realize that most sales are pre-orders and 0-day purchases and don't want to risk losing those. Have to beat Modern Warfare 2 somehow :p
Posted July 23, 2010
Please stop spouting your bullshit.
Posted July 23, 2010
avatar
stonebro: Please stop spouting your bullshit.

Please stop attacking Gundato whenever he posts. Fell free to not respond to him at all, or - his posts if you hate him so much, but keep the discussion on a certain level of politeness.
Plainly said: Gundato tends to piss me off, but you're doing it double so with this little 'resistance' of yours.
Posted July 23, 2010
avatar
stonebro: Please stop spouting your bullshit.
avatar
Fenixp: Please stop attacking Gundato whenever he posts. Fell free to not respond to him at all, or - his posts if you hate him so much, but keep the discussion on a certain level of politeness.
Plainly said: Gundato tends to piss me off, but you're doing it double so with this little 'resistance' of yours.

Don't be too harsh on him. I think he is going through some crap lately since he tends to blow up (worse than usual) at just about everyone. Give time to work it out and he'll probably be back to blowing up at his usual level :p
And you can't really blame him for blowing up at me (even when I am just relaying information with a mild spin). I tend to be an arrogant and snide bastard with different opinions, so it is no wonder that I would generate animosity.
Posted July 23, 2010
avatar
Gundato: And to provide further support for the fear that the Starcraft formula might actually be a bit too dated, ActiBlizzard has said that there will be no reviews prior to launch.
There are reasons for this (Battle.net is a big part of this, and a major update is going up with the game) and reasons against this (the SP doesn't need that).
And a more cynical person might argue that Blizzard realize that most sales are pre-orders and 0-day purchases and don't want to risk losing those. Have to beat Modern Warfare 2 somehow :p

The game will be a huge success, reviews or no reviews. I've played the Beta, it really, really beats the crap out of most new games. Its polished, balanced, exciting, beautiful...
Go Starcraft 2, go! :fanboy:
One thing that really bothers me, some people made a HUGE deal of this trailer. This is mainly to give some spoilers about the story, not show what the game is like. Look at other games' trailers. They all sure DO NOT show what the game is like.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)StarCraft II Commercial(58 posts)(58 posts)
(58 posts)