-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Starcraft 2 is now a trilogy
- Thread starter Link648099
- Start date
I just saw this interview video:
http://www.starcraft-source.com/ind...ideo&bcpid=&bclid=1740033618&bctid=1851181479
and the guy implied that they are building in tutorial levels for all 3 races that are not "campaigns", but will teach noobs how to play all 3 races. It will teach some basic terminology like "build order" as well.
http://www.starcraft-source.com/ind...ideo&bcpid=&bclid=1740033618&bctid=1851181479
and the guy implied that they are building in tutorial levels for all 3 races that are not "campaigns", but will teach noobs how to play all 3 races. It will teach some basic terminology like "build order" as well.
TheKingsCrown
Banned
Has ANYONE from blizzard given an indication for the release date for Terran: Wings of Liberty
momolicious
Member
too long away
I think Holiday 2009 is more realistic because they're going to want to get a head start on the Zerg Campaign before releasing the Terran Campaign. So that there is not a 2 year gap between the release of the Terran and Zerg campaigns. Since they are breaking the game up now they know that they have to release the Terran campaign before 2010 in order to keep the fans happy.
Makes sense, right?
Makes sense, right?
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Akia said:
It disgusts me to think that it would take Blizzard two years to make a Zerg campaign when in relaity it should a) Have already been started b)The gameplay is already set in stone and c)They've already had five years.
MisterAnderson
Member
GenericPseudonym said:
Yeah what are they thinking trying to make quality games? Disgusting.
Zzoram said:
Well, the software that's more expensive than games often have commercial applications and are bought by fewer numbers of people.
Take Photoshop for example. Most people that buy it are graphic designers that make money off of their projects. Compared to people that play games, that's a very small audience. Plus, people are willing to pay more because the program gives them a source of income, so it pays for itself.
Games? That just gives people something to play around with in their free time. That means they have to price it around other pieces of entertainment, not software.
Pop On Arrival said:Man, this just reassures that Warcraft IV isn't even on their table yet. How long must I wait?
We waited 10 years for Starcraft II. Diablo III was announced on the 8th year of Diablo II. We're only on year 6 for Warcraft III.
Big-E said:
This is Blizzard man.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
MisterAnderson said:
Let's not be stupid. Four years is the amount of time it takes to make a big and polished game.
SC2 has had five, its pathetic that they aren't closer to completion and while I appreciate how much effort they are putting into the campaign, a six year development cycle for one third of SC2 and over a year for the other parts makes me seriously doubt Blizzard's management style.
Big-E said:
Having the Terran Campaign in Summer 2009 would mean that they would start dividing staff to patching imbalances for a Summer 2009 launch. Which would in turn preoccupy the team's attention on having a successful launch (Worldwide) and less on the Zerg Campaign.
Having the Terran Campaign in Holiday 2009 would give them an ample amount of time to get the multiplayer game balanced for launch and have a longer beta period (which means less bugs/controversy on launch). This would also give them time to start production on the Zerg Campaign and polish the Terran Campaign.
In all honesty, the Terran Campaign has the most riding on it. If it delivers past the typical Blizzard single player campaign experience than people will jump onboard the expansion bandwagon. Therefore it has to be perfect and perfection takes time.
Minsc
Gold Member
GenericPseudonym said:
There's a lot more content in this game than most other releases coming out, and Blizzard is nuts when it comes to polish and balance, best in the industry probably. These days you're lucky if you get 15 hours single player gameplay for $60.
Even Dawn of War's great single player, 1 race campaign was a mere 10 or so levels. This is much, much more ambitious, and should easily surpass the original's content despite being 1 race.
Great news about having mini-tutorial single player levels for the other races too.
I'd be absolutely shocked if this game didn't get above a 90% average ranking, it will probably pass 95% or come very close, which I don't think is too common for RTS games.
CharminUltra
Member
If Blizzard's management are stupid then they gotta be the richiest, smartests,most successful retards I've ever seen.GenericPseudonym said:
JasonUresti
Member
Mindlog said:The 'glitch' became a crucial part of upper level gameplay. There's no problem learning from that heritage and trying to carry the torch instead of trying to kill it. Some games just take on a life of their own after the community gets a hold of it and are arguably made much better. If you believe that muta-micro negates strategy... well then I admire your ability to ignore everything else the player is doing/has done to give him the chance to spend a little bit of time out in the field and away from his base.
Yes, thats exactly what I didn't say. Nice job at being so ready to respond with scorn and sarcasm.
My point, which seemed fairly clear, was that its ok for Blizzard to not break a 3-D engine in order for it function like a 2-D one, so that players could continue using a glitch from the first game that was only usable because of Starcraft's engine. There will doubtlessly be new exploits and skills available in the second game, it is a new game after all.
maniac-kun
Member
maybe they should have used a bigger team to speed things up when they got to the state of simply producing the content for the 3 big campaigns. they have 30 people working on sc2 and 109 from the movie department who also work on the ingame cutscenes and the stuff between the missions
MisterAnderson
Member
Blizzard clearly has a different management style than most other companies. And this is why their games always kick ass. I'm not about to moan, bitch, and try to cramp their style when I want Starcraft 2 to be the best game possible. I trust in Blizzard 100% to deliver, which is more than I can say for any other game studio.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
MisterAnderson said:
I hated WarCraft 3.
JasonUresti said:
My apologies if it seemed too heavily loaded with scorn and sarcasm. The screenshot was an example of a game that was vastly improved because of an engine bug that the developer attempted to 'repair' in the sequel and the game suffered for it. We'll agree to disagree on muta-micro. I believe that amongst the highest level of play (far above my own) muta-micro evolved well beyond being called a glitch and into a core gameplay mechanic.
I am not surprised that a vocal group is consistently calling for Starcraft 2 to innovate and keep up with the times. There are a horde of alternatives to Starcraft available and not attempting to create something for the existing competitive base base would be a a real shame imo. This game has been played for over 10 years. I don't agree that Blizzard should throw away that legacy. If people really want innovation they have dozens of opportunities to enjoy other games.
GenericPseudonym said:
And alot of other people thought it rocked. Regardless all of their games from their core 3 and even some of the early stuff like RocknRoll Racing and the Lost Vikings series are good games, and very often of quality surpassing most other releases of the time.
MisterAnderson
Member
HK-47 said:
Valve is a close 2nd to me, forgot about them
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I've noticed that about RTS games as well. I think reviewers are getting a case of severe genre fatigue. It's going to be interesting to see how the flashier and more action oriented DoW II will affect how reviewers receive the more traditional SC2. Company of Heroes changed the expectations for the genre quite a bit.Minsc said:
GenericPseudonym
Banned
ZealousD said:
I didn't enjoy the lack of direction. The inclusion of heroes, creeps and upkeep made it a pretty crappy RTS. The fact that an RTS was still at the core made it a poor RPG, and the lack of cutscenes only contributed to a poorer story and what felt like a cheaper experience than SC storywise.
Also you have to add in that the Night Elves were such an unlikeable and boring race that it made the end game a real drag.
I know that this is not the case, but WarCraft 3 felt to me to be very transitional, an attempt to turn an RTS into an RPS (Role Playing Strategy) which thanks to WoW turned into a fully formed RPG.
Iced_Eagle
Member
MisterAnderson said:Valve is a close 2nd to me, forgot about them
Dog is ashamed you forgot! :lol
Anyways, I'm really hoping for a holiday 2009 release, with an open beta to play early in summer 09
TheOneGuy said:
I beg to differ. Warcraft 3 was a quality game no doubt, but I felt like it completely ruined the series by attempting to change the game into an RPG-lite with RTS elements. The dumbing down of the maximum allowed units and the absolute emphasis on needing leveled up hero units downright ruins any good elements the RTS portion of the game had going for it. I was ecstatic to find that they didn't ruin Starcraft 2 in such a manner, and honestly I'm glad Blizzard is going this route. This gives us the MP portion of the game earlier, which honestly is why the game will last another 10+ years like it's predecessor has, and throughout our time playing MP we'll get some seriously epic, incredible SP gaming that only Blizzard has consistently delivered throughout the years.
I'm all for trying new things, rather than sticking to the same tired formula over and over. Indeed, I was wary about Starcraft 2 until the trilogy announcement when they stated their intent to make each campaign feel just a little bit differently. Diablo 3 I was fine with from the beginning because of the first gameplay video -- complete with awesome boss fight.
Warcraft 3 is awesome. Different. But awesome nonetheless. You consider it "ruining" the game. I consider it "enhancing" the game. It's also not "dumbing down" the game. It's "making it different." Being blinded by nostalgia hurts sometimes.
If you want to play Warcraft II or Starcraft, go back and play those games. There's no point in making a game if it's going to be the exact same as its predecessor except with updated graphics.
Warcraft 3 is awesome. Different. But awesome nonetheless. You consider it "ruining" the game. I consider it "enhancing" the game. It's also not "dumbing down" the game. It's "making it different." Being blinded by nostalgia hurts sometimes.
If you want to play Warcraft II or Starcraft, go back and play those games. There's no point in making a game if it's going to be the exact same as its predecessor except with updated graphics.
G-Pink said:
Raynor, Kerrigan, Zeratul, and other heroes are definitely part of that. Firebats, Medics and other units that they experimented with but removed from multiplayer will also show up. The explanation in the Terran campaign is that Raynor's rag tag mercenaries are using older cheaper technology.
As for Zerg, there could be stuff like Hunter Killers, and other specially evolved variants of normal Zerg units.
Xel'Naga stuff will probably also show up.
There are also campaign-specific upgrades, like the one that lets you put 6 marines into a bunker. At the moment, it is too powerful for multiplayer. They may later balance multiplayer to the point where it becomes fair and add it in.
Campaign is free to use tons of non-multiplayer units, and the benefit of this is that the map editor will have tons more units and animations to work with for creating a DOTA type game.
TheOneGuy said:
It's pretty clear that myself and others of my opinion here are in the minority, at least judging by sales and the current population of WC3 servers, but we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think Starcraft 2 has proven that you can take an existing formula and just improve upon it without changing it's core gameplay in the way Warcraft 3 did. I'm wondering how WC4 will fare, because if they hold over WC3 gameplay I definitely will continue to play Starcraft 2.
Zzoram said:
Oh man I can't wait to see the "Chrono Trigger RPG" maps and stuff that come out of the new editor. UMS maps are so much fun.
Gwanatu T said:
I don't see that as dumbing down at all. If anything, it required me to pick my units more carefully and promoted the use of diverse armies.
I love Warcraft 3 for what it did, and I love Starcraft for what it did. I'm glad Warcraft 3 wasn't Starcraft++, and I'm glad Starcraft 2 isn't Warcraft 3++.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing.HK-47 said:
I'm referring to the type of people who proclaim Starcraft's perfection, and then ask for the exact same game, but prettier. There's no point to that. Sort of my fault, though, I didn't mean to be so accusational.
Plus, with Starcraft and Warcraft, they were already both RTS. What's the point in keeping both series following the same mold? Gotta differentiate 'em in more ways than just theme. EDIT: What dude above me said. d:
Also see: Relic, with Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
That's a shame. I am by no means saying Warcraft 3 is perfect. It was clearly flawed -- as often happens with new ideas. But it's still good. A sequel would only improve on that and make it better.
TheOneGuy said:
I'm not sure about everyone else, but Starcraft 2 is hardly anything than Starcraft but prettier. There are a ton of new units, and even the pre-existing units have been tweaked or changed somehow. Each race operates a little differently while not changing the overall strategy. It seems to me like Blizzard picked the perfect middleground between too much change and not enough change other than a graphical facelift. There's also stark differences in the way terrain is handled and how armies operate on it, including the fact that many units can how move over and around any terrain obstacles. There's probably more that I can't think of, simply because I'm only going on what I've seen so far, but I had a friend that went to the German Games Convention last month and got to play it, and he had nothing but praise for the game.