We ripped through a few matches of this upcoming strategy juggernaut just moments after BlizzCon's opening bell rang.
ANAHEIM, Calif.--Blizzard's sprawling biannual fan event Blizzcon is scarcely three hours old, but we've already gotten several matches of StarCraft II under our belt. The main convention hall contains rows upon rows of demo machines running both single- and multiplayer versions of the game. Scores of eager attendees are at this very moment queuing up to be among the first in the world to get their hands on this enormously anticipated strategy sequel. We wasted no time ourselves in hauling tail to the front of the line and jumping on a kiosk to try out the single-player demo before getting our derrieres served to us on a platter by experienced Starcraft players in the multiplayer game.
Blizzard is offering the protoss and the terrans as playable races in the BlizzCon demo, though the insectlike zerg are nowhere to be seen. There's also no glimpse of the game's storyline in either sample mission, both of which simply start you out with a partially constructed base and the missive that you must destroy the other race's nearby base. The single-player demo is limited to 20 minutes, which wasn't enough time to build up through the entire tech tree on either side, though we did get to see a wide sampling of units so far for both the terrans and protoss.
As longtime Starcraft players ourselves, we felt an immediate sense of familiarity when we sat down at the demo's controls. Everything from the graphical interface and the cursors to the speed and smoothness of the map scrolling felt exactly like vintage Starcraft. So there ought to be literally no learning curve whatsoever--aside from learning the intricacies of all the new and modified units--for anyone who's spent some time with the original game. Quite a few of the original voices for familiar units, such as the SCV and marine, are still present in this demo. The terran and protoss background music is also present. We expect these will change in the final game, but we were pleased to hear some familiar voices as soon as we began playing. The voice work of the new units that we've heard so far is of precisely the same style and quality that you'd expect, if you played the first game.
There have certainly been some nice tweaks made to the game's interface, though again, everything looks and feels overwhelmingly like the original Starcraft. Setting a production waypoint will indicate a visible line to that waypoint whenever the building is highlighted (which we don't remember from the original game, though our memories can admittedly be a bit rusty). Unit pathing seems more intelligent now because units will move out of the way to allow other moving units a direct path to their destination, rather than forcing the moving units to route around the stationary ones. And of course, Blizzard has already noted the ability to select as many units as you want at one time. This simply causes each unit's portrait in the lower status window to scale down in size, and we must have had 40 or so units all moving in a destructive mass at one point, which was awfully satisfying.
The multiplayer demo we tried briefly proceeded exactly as you'd expect if you've ever played a Starcraft multiplayer game. We started off with five SCVs and a command center then had to build up a base with our ally against two other players, who wasted no time rushing us with zealots and marines in the first 10 minutes of the game. Yep, it's the same old Starcraft. But from what we've seen of the new units and evolving tech tree so far, we're looking forward to devising some new defenses and strategies to keep the dreaded rush from taking us out in the future.
According to the Blizzard mission statement, Starcraft isn't as big on graphical complexity as some other recent strategy games. For that reason, it's already running as smoothly as butter in high resolution, likely 1680x1050 on widescreen monitors on the demo machines here. (Admittedly, those machines have beefy, two-slot video cards--likely GeForce 8800s--and a massive amount of memory because all four DIMM slots are visibly filled.) However, don't take that as a negative; this is a beautiful game. The units and terrain were already showing off as much detail as you would want out of a strategy game like this one. Signature Blizzard touches, such as a highly polished interface and animated unit portraits--now in full 3D, also rounded out the impressive presentation. Look for new video of the game to hit GameSpot during BlizzCon to get a new look at the game for yourself.
We've barely scratched the surface of Starcraft II so far. For instance, we've had a blast laying waste to our foes with massive new units, such as the protoss mothership and the terran Thor, which is an enormous mech with stationary artillery capabilities. But we've also noted some interesting changes to existing units, such as the terran battle cruiser, which can now specialize between air and ground attacks, as well as the terran command center, which can now add on some impressive new defenses. We wanted to give you our initial impressions of the game before dashing off to a demo of the new World of Warcraft expansion, Wrath of the Lich King (look for a live blog of that at 1 p.m. PDT), but we plan to give the Starcraft II demo plenty more attention at BlizzCon. Look for in-depth gameplay information on each race very soon.
DarkStorm, I completely agree with you, Apsalus, you talk about adding "kick-ass heroes" to the game, well, let me tell you something, why don't you create your own F****ing heroes in the campaign editor? or even better, don't even buy the game and stop whining about the games "no innovations", I mean, the three races are perfect, period, and adding one more would surely spoil the balance. Other thing: WarCraft III sucks balls... I hate that friggin' hero system, and those graphics SUCK compared with these. Besides, I like the old Marines voice.
BIG NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIABLO 3 CONFIRMED, I SAW IN THE BLIZZARD HOMEPAGE THAT IT SAY: "BLIZZARD THE CREATOR OF DIABLO, DIABLO 2 IS LOOKING FOR (SOMETHING) PROGRAMMER
@Kipchak Unfortunately, you're not the only one not to see what the difference is. Let me start off by saying: In theory, anyone can make a game using only mods, and people do, but this isn't just a mod and it's not just a port with improved graphics and new units. I mean, do you seriously not understand the point of a sequel? It's a continuation on the story (which can't be created, at least not accurately, by some mod team.), as well as better graphics and new units, but it also includes refined gameplay and the like, ya know...stuff that people put in a sequel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I fail to see why some people don't get why Blizzard's making a sequel or feel they're just trying to milk Starcraft's name. It's a sequel people! I can't really explain it if you don't already get it, but...wow...people these days. Do you just complain for the sake of complaining?
is it just me, or does any one else not see that big of a difference between this and SC1? besides the new unit types (which will probably be released in a sc1 mod) and sc1s extremely low system requirements and huge mod section, whats the point?
@Lebleu Fair enough, fair enough. I haven't played CoH in awhile and I was just using it for a point, but, well played :D @Aspsalus "How about adding some new races for starters; it worked very well for Warcraft 3. How about getting some new voice actors, rather than reusing the same 10-year old voice for your Terran Marine. How lazy can Blizzard be? Why not diversify the unit responses more so you don't have to hear the same voice all the time?" Where to begin, where to begin... How about you shut up and make your own game, since you have oh-so many great ideas on how. And to address the question: "How about getting some new voice actors, rather than reusing the same 10-year old voice for your Terran Marine. How lazy can Blizzard be?" It's called tradition, not laziness. Laziness would be remaking Starcraft with better graphics. You even think why they used the original Optimus Prime in Transformers: The Movie? And adding new races, well...why? What? Do they just appear out of deep space and join in on the battle for no apparent reason? And the unit responses are as diverse as any other RTS (Especially if you keep clicking on them). All that being said, how dare you insult other people when you yourself don't even have a good enough arguement to complain. Also, yeah, Wal-Mart doesn't sell Starcraft, they've got a lot more things to sell than videogames, but a lot of other people still do sell it, it's not like you have to go to some random downtown pawn shop to find it now-a-days. Also, you say it's old by today's standards. What other standards are you going to use?! 2010's?
Maybe there is going to be a new race...just don't know it yet? This whole time the Zerg have been gone is prob because their getting ass raped by some other race they discovered while checking out the rest of the galaxy...who knows? All I know is, ahh peaches!
@Bug420 OK, instead of the dictionary let me quote Blizzard, "[This game] is going to have a brand new engine." @NuZZ01 Wow, you're so retarded you couldn't even understand my comment. I was trying to show that SC2 has a brand new engine, so for proving my point. I would advise you to learn how to read before going to the forums, and then to learn how to write before posting. It took me 3 reads through your jarbled, childishly constructed paragraph before I could even understand what your flea brain was trying to communicate. @Williedude87 If you think that being able to select unlimited units is a big deal as you say, you're buying into Blizzard's hype. Selecting all your units is nothing new; that's been around ever since the beginning of the genre. It is not a big deal, it is not a small deal, it is not even a tiny deal... it is STANDARD BAGGAGE WITH VIRTUALLY ALL RTS GAMES. Also, I don't know where you live but around here I've never seen a gas station selling Starcraft. Also, Wal Mart doesn't carry Starcraft either (if you don't believe me, check walmart.com) so you're definitely wrong on that count. Now the question is: why doesn't the biggest retailer in the U.S. sell it? Because the game is old by today's standards, and thus can no longer be considered perfect. How many RTS's or video games have television stations dedicated entirely to them? None, to my knowledge. Anyway, that's irrelevant. I still believe Starcraft is a great game. What do I want done to Starcraft 2 and how would I make it better? How about adding some new races for starters; it worked very well for Warcraft 3. How about getting some new voice actors, rather than reusing the same 10-year old voice for your Terran Marine. How lazy can Blizzard be? Why not diversify the unit responses more so you don't have to hear the same voice all the time? Why not add some kick-ass heroes into the game? Having heroes is like having a huge powerful unit, and who doesn't love that? I've found that with every RTS I've played heroes really add a very nice, but limited RPG element. So those three things would be nice, for starters. @Lebleu asks, "As for SC2, is there anyone besides me who is dissapointed they didn't add hero units into the game?" --Yes, me!!
To Darkstorm: Just wanted to comment on what you said about COH sides being cosmetic only?? COH is one of the few games like SC2 out there that does actually provide a completely different experience and strategy for the 2 different sides. How can you say the difference between axis and allies in that game is purely cosmetic? As for SC2, is there anyone besides me who is dissapointed they didn't add hero units into the game? I thought this was the best part of WC3 and I think it would have fit into SC2 very well, it is a sequel afterall and should have at least a few big changes. Plus imagine the modding potential like all the minigames there were for WC3 if there were a hero unit.
This is going to be a EXTREMELY long comment that no one feels like reading. It looks fun to me and thats all that matters.
Heres my theory on the system requirement from being a committed gamer and my personal hardware knowledge. (For PERFECT play with large numbers of units in play) Highest graphics on resolution 1280x1024 or lower: GPU: 7900GT/7800GT/8600GTS or HIGHER (ATI Equivalents) CPU: AMD: Athlon 64 4000+ (Roughly) INTEL: Pentium 4 3.4ghz/Core 2 Due 2.4ghz or higher. (Obviously not minimal, but it is not like you buy anything worse in a comp for moderate gaming these days) RAM: DDR2 1gig should do, and preferably 512 video. Then there is just the issue with whether your PSU has enough power to run your graphics card, which it probably does unless you built it yourself and don't even know what a PSU is. But lowest graphics, on 1280x1024 I would think: GPU: Geforce 5200FX/ATI equivalent CPU: 2ghz pentium 4/AMD equivalent (or even low clock duel core ) RAM: 512 system, 128 or more on video But yes, doesn't seem like it will need very high priced hardware, as Blizzard said they seek to make it Shader 2.0 as they want more people to be able to play it while still making it look as good as it can for people with particularly decent setups.
Yeah, I'm a long time SC player since back in the day as I grew up with it. Like a lot of people! SC2 is most likely going to be so good it will be the complete substitute for the first Starcraft. Blizzard are rich enough to create decent games, not the random **** pieces that Ubisoft and EA tunnel through their name for the cash. Just saying Blizzard make decent games, full stop... They don't actually have a particularly bad pc game... I like the way they decided to halt SC:GHOST because of whatever reasons, which I assume that it is simply just a mediocre shooter. This will be one of the only game I will actually PAY for, along with Diablo 3 and any other Blizz game. And the only reason is because their online play is just THAT good... @Apsalus Were you trying to be sarcastic? If you wernt then you would have to be a **** dumb ass to believe that Starcraft 2 could not in fact use a new engine. I think you must of had been sarcastic as "Starcraft 2 is a *sequel* which (for those of you that apparently don't know) means that it's built off of a previously existing engine." is so pathetically stupid due to the previous starcrafts 2D graphics engine. Or even the WC3 engine could not do what you see in SC2. Whatever your obviously not serious. Who ever is saying that this looks crappy and it looks like broodwar 2 (what the fawk?) you mustn't know how rts game work. You see, they either MAKE A sequil, or don't. WHO HERE WOULD PREFER THEY DIDN'T MAKE A SEQUEL to preserve the ""perfect"" starcraft one? I thought not. Maybe you guys should think about what your saying before you write it or else it may be misconstrued for stupidity, as I believe you must of had meant something else :). And to anybody who tries to dislike this game, feck off!
To Wardog: I think you're failing to recognize what make Starcraft such an excellent game: It's truely unique gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I own, play and really enjoy Supreme Commander but the one thing it does, as well as Company of Heroes (and a lot of other RTSs), is that the difference in factions are all cosmetic. Each faction has it's own uniquely designed and named units, but when it come down to it, they're all the same. You've just got 3 different types of one unit. Now Starcraft on the other hand has units not only cosmetically destinct units, but they also behave completely different than any other unit on the battlefield, making it a game that requires strategy beyond knowing what works best against units identical to your own. To Mech-Killer: "Another thing, Blizzard wanted to wait for their technology to get better so they could make a game that could maybe beat World of Warcraft." What the Hell, man? Are you serious? Waiting for the technology to get better to surpass WoW? I don't know if you've noticed, but WoW isn't the apex of 3D graphic, nor was the intent. Blizzard could have easily made SCII on the current technology, but they're busy taking time making sure the game is as good as it can be. I don't know if some of you people out there have noticed, but, like I've said before, Blizzard isn't out for the sole purpose of making money, I mean sure, it's a goal and yeah, WoW has to be bringing in ungodly amounts of money, but they didn't do that by screwin' people over. They did it by doing what they always do: Making quality games. ...'nuff said.
I can't wait for this game to come out. I still play starcraft after all these years and I'm positive S2 will be just as exciting and lasting.
Won't be that much of a system hog. Im guessing standard GeForce 4's can run this game. Doesn't look like you'd need a killer graphics card to run it. Not much diffrent between SC1 and this graphical wise. There is some but not much to worry about. Game seems to be using DX9 and looks like you won't need a uber amount of RAM to run it or a super CPU. Guessing a 1.6GHZ, 256(more then likely 512 or 1gb due to if it works on Vista) and a 64MB Video card maybe a 128mb video card could be able to run this without a problem.
There is but one thing that needs to be said?Starcraft rocks. And Starcraft 2 shall be no different, of this I am certain. Let?s look at things logically as to how I came to this conclusion. First, it has the same basic engine as Starcraft; building units, resource management, upgrading, all that jazz. But now, it has new mechanics, things that we had wanted in the original. For instance, not having limits on how many units we select? That means you may move your whole force en mass with one command. That will maximize the destruction output greatly, enough said. Not only that, but keeping several classic units, and adding all new ones with awesome abilities, transformations, devastating upgrades, and we haven?t even seen that much of the Zerg yet. I DARE someone out there to say that the Protoss Mothership isn't seriously kick-ass... And so what if the graphics aren't as good as other games? Who cares? This game isn't about graphics. Truthfully any game really isn?t about the graphics. The visuals are the least important thing about it. The gameplay and how it reacts is more important. The plot and story is more important. Hell, the music is more important. And besides, the graphics seem pretty damn fine to me. When zooming in on the Zealots, you could see their head tentacle-things swinging around. That's detailed, yes? The whining is what bothers me the most. I?ve heard these before? "They shouldn't mess with Starcraft..." "It's so similar..." "It's a sellout..." My response? WHO FREAKIN' CARES? If everyone thought this way, we'd be without some of the greatest games of all time. So what if it's not groundbreakingly different? So what if it's not at the pinnacle of cutting edge technology? The fact is that Starcraft was a game, that even by today is one of the worlds best. And please, don't take MY word for it. Ask around why don't you? Is it perfect? Certainly not, but what I would call nigh perfect. Regardless, now they have finally decided to make a new one, and what do some of you out there do? You whine. For those of you with skepticisms, if it bothers you that much, don't buy the damn game, don?t bother yourself by looking at these updates, and keep your detracting comments out of all our faces. Starcraft is a cultural space-story behemoth, that has influenced the world. I?ll not be so arrogant as to say that Starcraft is as powerful as Star Wars in terms of influence (Such a thing I doubt is possible), but it is a juggernaut nonetheless and you diminutive people have not the right to question what may or may not be good about it. Starcraft 2 will eventually come out, continuing the much awaited story after Brood War. Despite the cynicism of some, I KNOW everyone is wondering about the Hybrid, or whether or not Jim Raynor is going to follow through with his promise to finally kill Kerrigan, the Queen of Blades. And with new units, new stages, new technologies and mechanics, Blizzard would have to make some SERIOUS mistakes for it to be anything but another masterpiece. But again, don?t heed MY speculations?When the game comes out, then we?ll see who was right. I have a sneaking suspicion that it?s me?
@Apsalus What's with your blind hatred of this game? This game is not trying to evolve into a MMORPG so your World of Warcraft blah blah.. what was that for? The big deal with being able to select unlimited units is a strategic one. Who cares if you can select all units in another game, what relevance does that have to STARCRAFT? If you played the game, you would realize that this is huge for the strategic direction of Starcraft.. thats its importance. "So many years have passed since Starcraft I came out that by today's standardsit can no longer be considered perfect. The industry evolves" Lets not forget that this is a STRATEGY game. As long as that remains intact, nothing else actually matters. Yet you can still find the original in gas stations, Wal*Marts and game stores. Thousands of people still play it over the other RTS's available. Tell me, how many other RTS's or video games period have television stations dedicated entirely to them? 10 years after the original release? So what is wrong with a long anticipated, long awaited, hugely demanded update of StarCraft? I guess what I really want to know, what point are you trying to prove here? What do you want done? Because it looks too me like its virtually exactly what I want. I've played and tried to get into a lot of other RTS's but none of them capture my interests like StarCraft still does. I love playing it still, and I eagerly await StarCraft II. If you can think of a way to make it better for the people its designed for, by all means.. spill spill! If not.. who cares? @DarkLord Will StarCraft II take advantage of DirectX 10? What other graphical goodies are included? The game will be compatible with DirectX 10, and we're still considering whether there will be exclusive DirectX 10 graphic effects @Bug420 Are you suggesting this is not a new engine? Blizzard has clearly stated this is a new engine, built for this game from the ground up.
you guys keep talking about graphics when you should be thinking about the game itself... yes graphics make or break some games, like sports games and empire earth... now immagine a madden game looking the way it did ten years ago... it would be lame... with an rts it is more about how tactical the game can actually be like Kohan or Supreme commander, or how fun it is to smash thing and conquer like WC3 and Starcraft... blizzard knows this and that is why they make their games so fun... look at wow it is soo addictive because it is just a really good game but as far as 3D MMO's it really isn't verry high on the graphics list... guild wars looks much better by the graphics too bad guildwars got boring fast... personally i am just happy to have them upgrade the game from the state they left it nearly ten years ago... visible way points , units that move when others try to get by being able to select more than 12 units at a time ( wich will extremely change how you can handle the zerg so yes that is a BIG difference in the game) these little things that most of you have dismissed will be what makes the two games different not the graphics... play Warcraft 3 for a while and then try switching to starcraft and you will see how much smoother starcraft could be... it turns out to be more frustrating than you think... i mean it doesn't even have a building que system for buildings...
@Aspalus: Don't quote the dictionary for the definition of sequel when you are trying to prove this isn't using the same engine as before. The dictionary isn't going to have anything about videogame sequels using the same engine as its predecessor.
The game looks great so far but I gotta ask, is there any chance of DX10 support?? The game would look amazing in DX10.
looks and sounds like a rip off.. but blizzard can always amaze me :) so far all the games theyve made have been successes :)
To be honest, I don't really care if the graphics aren't totally top notch technology, as I have an aging computer and can't afford a new one. As long as the gameplay is there, and the units are all in 3d now instead of moving sprites, and it is still starcraft, then this game will already get a high score in my books without even testing it out yet. I find some RTS games that have too much special effects and graphics tend to look muddy on screen. I mean the camera is so far away most of the time that half of the special effect will chug your system but not really improve the game that much. Here's hopin for a winner!
Waiting for stacraft 2 w000t!!. Don't really car if its jut jazzed up sc1. Um C&C tiberium wars was the same thing as its old preds and its one aweosme rts. Can;t wait to see this sucker blazing on my desktop w000tt!!!!! -(punches self in face to calm himself )
Looks pretty good, but it could be better...I mean, the graphics aren't that good compared with Company of Heroes or other RTS games. Still, the game looks fun to play. A quote from Apsalus: "Wow!!! That is so groundbreaking!!! I've never ever played an RTS that allowed me to actually MOVE MY ENTIRE ARMY... entire army wow I never even thought it was possible." Yeah...you must play Supreme Commander or C&C. Even the old ones like Total Annihilation and Red Alert let you select your entire army
Let me please address the arguments put forth by some blind Blizzard loyalists who try to make excuses for Blizzard's lack of innovation: >>> Starcraft 2 is a *sequel* which (for those of you that apparently don't know) means that it's built off of a previously existing engine. Sequel (noun) 1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.... I don't see anything in there about previously existing engines, do you? >>> [Blizzard] removed the unit selection cap allowing players to move their entire army at once if desired Wow!!! That is so groundbreaking!!! I've never ever played an RTS that allowed me to actually MOVE MY ENTIRE ARMY... entire army wow I never even thought it was possible. >>>And one more thing, watch the tech demo before saying it has nothing new Watched it. My first impression? Starcraft I with better graphics. Yeah sure there are some new units and new abilities, but both of those make SCII sound more like an EXPANSION than a new stand-alone game. >>>WC3 had four races, but gameplay-wise they weren't nearly as unique in relation to each other as the three races in SC. The four WC3 races were unique enough to start the creation of a gigantic online world. Imagine, if you will, WC3 with only 2 races (Suppose Blizzard decides that WC2 is "too perfect to screw with"). If that were the case, today there might be no Night Elves, no Undead. And with a sudden lack of races in the Warcraft universe that would result from this hypothetical scenario, would Blizzard even bother to make World of Warcraft? Ponder that, all you 10 million WoW users out there. >>>the game is too perfect to screw with. I think I have pretty much addressed this, but let me just say a few more words on the subject. So many years have passed since Starcraft I came out that by today's standardsit can no longer be considered perfect. The industry evolves. Don't get bogged down in the past, and more importantly don't bog Blizzard down in the past.
i agree with dex. the starcraft series is too perfect and starcraft 2 is just following in it's footsteps.
Look, Blizzard removes the resolution limit, adds 3d and effects, adds a few more units and re-releases it. Now think for a minute, yes it's a case of don't fix what ain't broke, but do you really want them to add something to the system? Break up the dynamics, the equilibrium and then it's not Starcraft any longer. I still enjoy the original Starcraft and by the count of channels and players per section, I guess I'm not the only one. If you want something more, tough, pick up another game but at least in my opinion, the game is too perfect to screw with.
actually, it doesn't seem that impressive... there was quite a jump from warcraft 2 to warcraft 3... starcraft 2 kinda looks like starcraft 1: brood wars 2
Starcraft 2 looks great. The first one was unbelievable. I first played it in 2002 - 03 and thought it was one of the best games i had ever played. The only downside is that i wanted warcraft 4 to be made more than starcraft 2. But hey, its still good
Ok, how has no one captured the point of this game? Of course it's an updated graphics engine for an aging game. Ancient, practically. The graphics engine sucked, I could barely see what I was doing while playing it, and the majority of the game was played from the minimap. I HATE the graphics engine (specifically, the camera work and overly bulky UI) of starcraft, it's one of my only complaints about the game. The others are that resource management is based on a cumbersome system, and the AI's auto target priority is set terribly, both of which look to still be there. Sucks. But fundamentally, none of that is what Starcraft 2 is about. It's about furthering the exploration of the Starcraft universe. Blizzard isn't looking to sell you on their amazing game that is OMFG so good it hurts, they're looking to sell you on the depth and complexity of their universe, make you want to live and breathe starcraft. They have a large enough fan base, too, to make that a tenable marketing strategy. Like BMX XXX, when the game is not the main selling point, it does not need to be amazing, just passable. Will I still buy it? Of course, it's blizzard, let's not kid ourselves, if we weren't intrigued enough to buy it we wouldn't be reading this story, if only to see just how bad it is. Are SupCom and CoH (or for that matter the Warhammer game it's based on) incredible RTS games that deserve accolades? Of course. Does it look like this game will push the envelope? No. Will it be a great game? Remains to be seen. Just because other games are good does not mean this one will not be. Remember that. And for the record, regarding the races- they were just as diverse in WCIII as they were in SC, that was a stupid comment. But more races Does Not immediately make for a better game, and remember, the goal is to enrich and explore the starcraft universe, so where exactly would this new race have miraculously sprang from? The release date is far enough off that the Xel'Naga may in fact be in it, but excluding them, what Options are there even for new races? Remember, Story First, gimmicks second.
If the above are all there is to brag about, count me out. I'll wait until it goes on major sale to buy this expansion.
i think the terran are a little under powered. in the demonstration, they shoulda been against the protos to show the actual balance b/t the races. they'le probably fix that, and this games gona b tight
This is going to be a good game. I so sick of people harping on it. It doesn't mean you're a fanboy if you say it's going to be good. What I'm really REALLY sick of is people saying that this is just the WarCraft III engine. Things have a lot higher ploygon count that WCIII. Obviously, the pathing is different to accomodate the massive armies of StarCraft. There is a lot of things like parallax scrolling on the backgrounds. It's not the WarCraft III engine. People are pobably too young to even remember the exact same things being said about the original StarCraft. (It's just Warcraft in space.) Hardware issues shouldn't be a big deal. Blizzard's not lazy about scaling stuff. It's not going to be like the Lost Planet port, where they just require a rediculous system instead of doing the labor to scale it to something the average person can afford. Plus, I have been playing Command and Conquer III, and yes, it does have a great look. You can't say it's a million times better than SCII though. If you zoom in tight enough of the units in CC3, they look at least as blocky as the SCII units. People respond to these Blizzard games in such a weird way. Being a big fan of Blizzard, it seems weird to me. I guess it's like the way I am with U2. Really, I think they are mediocre, but I will curse them up and down just because soooo many people think they are soooo great. Bottom line: This game will look and play good. If you'd rather play something more military-like, go with COH or CC3. If you want a deep deep RTS game, this will be it. The setting and the gameplay will likely just take a lot of imagination.
wargod 53, u may want to take a second look at the graphics engine, it has many great aspects such as great fog/ambient lighting, abundant bloom, great bumpmapping, shadows galore, incredibly detailed textures, and a very precise pixel shading system thaqt has not been bettered in quite a few modern games, and, id like everyone to know that there in fact was a starcraft 1.5 whic was a mod or C+C generals, and a small one for wcIII, but this mod was notified to be illegal and was banned from the internets
- Release Date: Jul 27, 2010 (US)
- ESRB: TTitles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older.