Amish users?

[Giggilyomeromicon]

Seriously, what gives? I've been lurking around this forum for a while now, reading all the topics and posts, and I've come to a disturbing conclusion: the majority of people here don't want Starcraft to change. The major reason for this is that "Adding another race would break the gameplay!" or "Blizzard doesn't need to update something that's already perfect!". Why is this? Is it because of how much time you've spent practicing, or the fact your "Pro"?

What I don't understand is how people can think that Blizzard won't try to improve on the game, or change the units. There are some topics here about adding or changing units to the game. Changing units? Spoilers: most RTS sequels don't share the same units as the one that came before it. Examples: Homeworld, Ground Control, C&C, Earth 2150, and the list goes on. When adding new units is discussed, people say "Oh no, that would imbalance the game!" How would that imbalance the game? It's a sequel, they can balance it while they're making it.

I'm confused about the fact that people even want to keep the game 2d. 2d. Why 2d? In this day and age when we've got 3d graphics that almost look real. Funfact: There's no way in hell that blizzard is going to keep Starcraft 2d. If they do, they'll loose most of their market (Realize this, a couple of kids on a forum somewhere aren't going to make big profit). And people say "Oh no, what if they make Zerglings look wrong?! That's not how Zerglings look!" But oh no, you're wrong. That's how Zerglings look, you just imagined it wrong (Not saying that Zerglings are going to be in Starcraft 2)!

So what I'm really asking here is: Why do you find change so distasteful? Because anyone who says "Starcraft is perfect" hasn't played another good RTS in a long, long time.

<end rant> <start probable flames>

[iHawk]

It's a squeal, they can balance it while they're making it I believe you mean "sequel" :p

Other then that I'd say this is a pretty justified rant, although your title might irk some sensitive users (hah, like Warboards users have feelings :p )

I agree that if they change the game too much it might not be as fun but knowing Blizzard they'll change what they have to but they'll still manage to make a badass RTS. What if they got rid of Zerglings? Or Ghosts? or Dark Archons even? It's still more likely then not going to be an RTS that's more then worthy of your time. So here's what I think. If you liked Starcraft then trust the people that Made the game to make good calls about it's sequel.

That is all

[hammocksleeper]

What I find most amusing (disturbing) is how all the "Starcraft 2" mods that are out there, etc. have all the same units, no really substantial twists to the storyline and are on the whole pretty boring and very unlikely to be anything like the real SC2, if it is ever made.

[ITSTORRASQUE4U]

Blizzard making SC2? I think it would be more profitable for them to sell the franchise. After all, they've abandoned us for so much time, they don't even care anymore. They'll sell the game to whoever has the money.

[Zenox]

In all I agree : Change units or upgrade the ones that exist if not then why make sc2? play with the original if you like it so BAD!
3D is a must and i agree Blizz won't release a near life like game as they are Perfectionist and if the graphix aren't scary they won't release.
And the people who say : " who needs a SC2 ?" Really need to realise that Blizz will eventually make the sequel with major changes because it's a Dormant Gold Volcano that Blizz will rely on someday. That's what i think.

[SilverCrusader]

Oh, Blizzard isn't going to make it 2D, thats a given, they said their through with 2D editors, so it is 3D from now on, we can just hope that they come out with a really cool editor.

[Catis]

Dd anyone here notice that a good bit of his rant was personal opinion? I'm personally too lazy to point out every one at the moment.

True, some changes to the SC units would make the franchise much more different and possibly degrade it a bit, but i'm personally not afraid to experience a sequel to it. I think it would be a good deal. But whether or not someone thinks Starcraft as an RTS is the best RTS out there is personal opinion. After all, it's still my favorite RTS, and in my opnion, THE most balanced RTS.

[U-238]

A very good rant. I can't seem to see why people who look at SC2 for the first time, see the changes, and think "Oh my Gawad. this is gonna suck."

Blizzard has had an extremly long history of releasing games of quality. Not just standard quality. Exceptional quality. True the game may not be 100% perfectly balanced right off the bat. However the origanal SC wasn't either. It's called a patch. It's the device they used to balance the origanal and it's what they'll use to balance sc2.

As for 3d graphics, they will not let us down. With the tools availible today it's not hard for even a home user to make a good looking zergling. They'll come through perfectly. Another thing most people are afraid of is that if it goes 3d it'll be way too much like W3. This is probably not going to be the case and, even if it is, it's not going to screw the game over.


They'll eventually make it, and when they do, you'll be happy with it. I garruntee it.

[MrBobby]

<flame> i think you're being a bit stupid... of course blizzard will TRY and improve the game. but the point is, the starcraft community in general believes that starcraft is a game so close to perfection that is is very very unlikely they will be able to improve it. this is also probably the reason it's taken blizz such a long time to start making a sequal (i think most of us are assuming they at LEAST have it in planning, if not production).</flame>

ok so it was a pretty mild flame. but you get my point.

edit: and it's obvious why 3D would suck for sc2. laaaaaaaaaame graphics, cartoonish, bad control, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

edit#2: but of course everyone will still buy SC2 if/when it is released.

[MrBobby]

A very good rant. I can't seem to see why people who look at SC2 for the first time, see the changes, and think "Oh my Gawad. this is gonna suck."

people can't see the changes.......... nothing's been released... what are you talking about? :S

[Ktan]

that's assuming that the Graphics would be cartoony. If the graphics were as good as DoW or Ghost, or in the style of either, thry'd be fine. Ghost looked great, WC seems more cartoony, if any Blizzard game is, and that's just how it's styled.

Anyone still calling for 2-D graphics is kidding themselves. There's also a lot of functions that could be taken from WC III (heroes barred) to add a little more flavour to SC. However, adding a new race is difficult, since for me, it's getting the tone right. Hybrids are ok, but I don't think they'd be great as a 'true' playable race and if Blizz put Xel'Naga in, I'm going out and playing with gasoline on their front lawn. More units for the existing races would be welcome (perhaps meaning slight changes to old ones). However, does SC II really need a fourth race? Look at Supreme Commander and C&C 3. They're putting the cap on at 3 races, so it's rather daft to say it needs another race to compete for next/current-gen. Indeed, DoW only has so many races because it has 20 years of tabletop gaming to draw from. SC has about 8-9 from one smaller company (well, at the time, of release).

I could say more. I'll see how the thread goes along before chucking any more of my opinions in.

[Magmaniac]

SC2 isn't going to be in 3d because it's going to come out on the DS! GET WITH THE TIMES PEOPLE THE FUTURE OF GAMING IS IN HANDHELD CONSOLES!

[SilverCrusader]

umm It is going to be 3D so don't complain about it. They can make it much better by adding weather system, clouds, night + day, more tilesets, bigger maps, more capable editor, and much more. You see all those things aren't bad, they are very very good.

[Shortyland05]

hmm, the day and night thing would be interesting...

and also Ive heard that when WC first came out it looked cartoony, so they carried on that look for WC. And when they got sick of WC they made SC, which in the game has a serious/dark look. So im going to say that SC2 would keep the Serious/Dark look that the original has...

[PrestonBurke]

and also Ive heard that when WC first came out it looked cartoony, so they carried on that look for WC.

Actually the first Warcraft had a very dark tone to the game, but then they abandoned that look for some strange reason. WCII started the whole cartoonish sprites aspect of WC.

[B.A.Baracus]

The first WC wasn't that dark, or cartoonish, it was just spritey. The character voices are also very comical. WHAT.. STOP POKING ME!

[Shortyland05]

well, I havent played either wc1 or 2, so I wouldnt know... I was just going on what ive heard and remember from what ive heard.

[King_Critter]

well, I havent played either wc1 or 2, so I wouldnt know... I was just going on what ive heard and remember from what ive heard.

I haven't played WC1, but I own the second one (though I haven't played it in forever :rolleyes:) and I do remember how the portraits and such had a very anime-ish quality to them. Pretty cool, actually.

In fact, I wouldn't mind if SC 2 looked cartoony -- hell, I'd even like cell-shaded! Actually, that would be pretty cool... Does anyone know if a cell-shaded look has been tried before in an RTS?

SC2 isn't going to be in 3d because it's going to come out on the DS! GET WITH THE TIMES PEOPLE THE FUTURE OF GAMING IS IN HANDHELD CONSOLES!

It is my personal belief that there will be a SC for the DS - but it'll come out at the same time as SC2 for computers.

------------

To address the original poster: Very well said. 'Bout time someone smacked some sense into people. ;)
+Karma

[BlizzJK]

edit: and it's obvious why 3D would suck for sc2. laaaaaaaaaame graphics, cartoonish, bad control, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

3D graphics doesent mean cartoonish style. Where have you been living, under a rock?
Look at company of heroes graphics, supreme commander graphics, Total war 2 graphics.
3D graphics depends on the modeling, texturing and game engine itself.
But mostly on the modeling and texturing.

So 3D graphics in no way mean cartoonish style!

The way starcraft will be interesting to old and new players is of brings major changes. These changes mean: story, units, graphics, gameplay elements, new modes and so on...
If we see Starcraft 2 in 2D and same old thing with only 2-3 new units most out there will be disapointed and new players won't even consider buying it!
But anyways theres just no way starcraft 2 will be in 2D.

The game is in development but won't see the daylight until at least Q1 2008!

[Shortyland05]

another example for BlizzJK's list is Dawn of War... :D

anyway, I would expect at least SOMETHING in the SC universe to be at least announced in 2008... if we don't then we shall know that Blizzard has betrayed us! We could compare it to a couples wedding anniversary... and the guy (or girl) not doing anything and giving the excuse 'What anniversary?'

[Ktan]

another example for BlizzJK's list is Dawn of War... :D



While I agree, Company of Heroes is a better example from the same company.

[Shortyland05]

just a question, what is Company of Heroes like? is it similar gameplay or different from DoW?

[Ktan]

It's basically a major advance. Think about DoW with almost all the major issues (pathing, lack of AI when it comes to cover, unit spamming [for the most part]) removed.

Regardless, that's veering off topic, and I'm not totally versed in CoH. You're best looking at the games themselves, review sites and Relic Forums.

[DragonPaladin]

o here's what I think. If you liked Starcraft then trust the people that Made the game to make good calls about it's sequel.

As far as I know, Blizzard has really never steered wrong before...Unless you count SC: Ghost, but that's never been released. XD

[TitanWing]

I really, really, REALLY hope SC2 isn't 3D. And Imma go in there and kill them all if they make it for the next generation of computer technology. Dammit, I don't want to buy a whole new fucking computer for one game.

[kongurous]

I really, really, REALLY hope SC2 isn't 3D. And Imma go in there and kill them all if they make it for the next generation of computer technology. Dammit, I don't want to buy a whole new fucking computer for one game.

Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look?

[Shortyland05]

I thought the same thing kongurous...

o here's what I think. If you liked Starcraft then trust the people that Made the game to make good calls about it's sequel.As far as I know, Blizzard has really never steered wrong before...Unless you count SC: Ghost, but that's never been released. XD

The people in blizzard who made SC have left, to the best of my knowledge.

[TitanWing]

Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look?
More importantly: do I care?:shiftyl:

It's stupid to not want to buy a new computer for each new game? It's stupid to not want SC to be 3D when every other strategy game that I know of as being 3D has inferior gameplay at the expense of graphics? Perhaps I've been spoiled by SC, perhaps I'm afraid of change, but I have my reasons.

[BlizzJK]

I thought the same thing kongurous...



The people in blizzard who made SC have left, to the best of my knowledge.
around 15 of the people that made starcraft left/retired, but the rest are all there!
Afterall starcraft was made by around 100 people!

[Mr.Bad]

TitanWing, THe fact that a game is 3d should not affect its gameplay. That would be the way the game was designed at fault. Most games don't have gameplay on par with SC. period. It doesn't make sense to blame this on the fact that most games are 3D and SC is not.

[kongurous]

More importantly: do I care?:shiftyl:

It's stupid to not want to buy a new computer for each new game? It's stupid to not want SC to be 3D when every other strategy game that I know of as being 3D has inferior gameplay at the expense of graphics? Perhaps I've been spoiled by SC, perhaps I'm afraid of change, but I have my reasons.

Three words. Dawn of War. Besides, it's a good idea to upgrade your computer anyway. I don't just upgrade mine for games, I do it for extra speed, bragging rights, and in case something breaks, the manufacturer will actually care about my complaints.

[Shortyland05]

Just to back up kongurous, the system reqs for DoW is:
-1.4 gig pentium or AMD Atholn XP processor
-256 Ram
-2 gig free Hdd space
-32mb video card

see? Unless most of the computing community is REALLY poor, then graphics issues for RTS's should not be a problem... Unless Blizzard makes the graphics like Black and White 2, which I highly doubt (remember the 640*480 res in original SC, the reason why they wouldnt allow higher res cause they wanted lower end machines to run it.)

but thats my 2 cents...

[IrishDutchman]

Sure, they should definitely pugrade a possible sequel to 3D. No-one besides the fanatic SC oldies will turn their head at something 2D these days.
I don't think they should really push computers to their limit either, however. Look at games like Supreme Commander. The most common complaint I hear is 'My computer can't run it, so I'm going to buy something else instead'.
If the graphics aren't top notch, it won't matter much. Look at WoW, the quality is pretty dated, but even so 7 million people play it.

[BlizzJK]

As long as GeForce 5 series and Radeon 9 series can run it good on low settings it should be okay!
anyways we have some really chip hardware parts today.
For example: Intel C2D 6300, 7900Gs for only 150$ or 7600GT for 120$ and not to mention that 86xx series are coming out in march with unified architecture!

[Shortyland05]

when is the 8800 due to hit the shelves?

As long as GeForce 5 series and Radeon 9 series can run it good on low settings it should be okay!

Although I wouldnt like it to be throttled to low end machines though...
I would like it to be able to run on those cards yes... but I would also like it to have pretty stuff that can run good a 6600gt as well :D (and maybe the 7 series!)

[kongurous]

The 8800 has been out for awhile. I'm using one right now.

[King_Critter]

If they make it so you can turn off a lot of the eye candy, then that'd work great -- people with crappy computers could still play it, but those that splurged on a kick-ass gaming machine would get their money's worth.

[TitanWing]

If they make it so you can turn off a lot of the eye candy, then that'd work great -- people with crappy computers could still play it, but those that splurged on a kick-ass gaming machine would get their money's worth.
Hear! Hear!

Btw, my computer isn't crappy btw, I'm just supporting those who don't have the money to keep up.

[Shortyland05]

I would probably be somewhere in the middle of the computer range... maybe just below or above...

So I think I would be able to run it if it did follow these rules!

[IrishDutchman]

The sad thing is: I know that how low detail the graphics may be, my computer will never be able to run it. :cry:
Seriously, you've never seen anything like my Dell Inspiron 4100.
20Gig hard disc.
128(!) MB ram.
886 Mhz

I recently upgraded the RAM to 512 MB, but even so, this thing sucks balls.
That, and the sound card has broken. It's part of the motherboard, so getting a new one isn't possible.

I'm going to cry myself to sleep now...

[Superiorwolf]

If Starcraft 2 is in 3d, as long as it keeps the gameplay fast, I will be moderately fine with it. It shouldn't look cartoony, with fatty characters like in Warcraft, that all move at relatively the same pace and attack at the same pace.

The units should stay the same with the same skills, and no 'heroes' in the melee games.

If the game is slow paced because of 3d, then myself (many others) and koreans will stick to Broodwar. The reason that Broodwar is so popular even after 10 years is because it is balanced and extremely intensive. I mean fine, give some stuff to the UMS people, UMS maps a pretty nice, but don't ruin melee gaming. The best RTS gaming to date - unlike Warcraft, Age of Empires, command and conquer... those are all slow, boring, and unbalanced.

[TitanWing]

I agree wholeheartedly.