New StarCraft 2 Screenies!

[Roofles]

Via Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/365415/new-gigantic-starcraft-ii-screens

Awesome. Just awesome... I can't wait.

I'm still waiting for them to update their website with the zerg info and a zerg play through....

[glockjs]

all ur posts belongs to me's

[UnrealAlex]

Whats so great about the game anyway? I never got into Starcraft.

[technoViking]

AMAAZING this is seriously a game I have been waiting for, for a long long time.
I know i want some zerg pics/videos!

I wasn't impressed with how the zerglings looked or moved though.

Like the whole zerg race when they did show it, looked 2 like cartoony almost?
not sure hwo to describe it, but it didn't fit the picture with the pro and terian

[mage_x]

Looks a lot better than the first screens they released last year. Looks less cartoony/warcraftish.

[MEMex]

I'd rather have vids! Screenies are weaksauce :p

[technoViking]

Yah I agree, the units look a lot better.

[Hardin]

Those pics are awesome. I can't wait to get into use map settings games all over again. And the base game isn't that bad either ;)

[SteveLord]

Whats so great about the game anyway? I never got into Starcraft.

Then you certainly can't even come close to labeling yourself a PC Gamer.

You should be fined. :)

[Roofles]

Then you certainly can't even come close to labeling yourself a PC Gamer.

You should be fined. :)

Fined his computer, given a console, and only allowed to play pong. ;)

[Hardin]

Maybe he is a hardcore Total Annihilation player who refused to play Starcraft.

[technoViking]

WHAT 9000?!!?

[PhysX]

this look nice, blizzard ALWAYS does a good job on their games.

[lordkosc]

never played starcraft, but it does look good :)

[Neural Net]

Maybe he is a hardcore Total Annihilation player who refused to play Starcraft.

Oh so someone that likes playing a real RTS then? ;)

[lordkosc]

Starcraft from what I can tell was more fun than TA , can someone compare the two and give pro's and con's to someone who has never played either of them?

[pejsaboy]

I didn't want to have to do it... and I've been thinking about it for a week, but Ima hafta install starcraft and finish playing through it this time. Doom 3 will have to wait. again. :) Those screenshots are just awesome. I hope the single player campaign for sc2 is on par with Blizz's past RTS single player campaigns... I never could really get into multiplayer for any of them.

[ps2cho]

Hey guys,

I used to love Warcraft III...still do, but play less campaign. Will I like Starcraft? Whats the biggest difference?

[ratbuddy]

Hey guys,

I used to love Warcraft III...still do, but play less campaign. Will I like Starcraft? Whats the biggest difference?

You mean SC1 vs WC3? Biggest difference is SC is a 2d isometric view, while WC3 is a full 3D engine. Starcraft has beautiful hand drawn sprites, or at least beautifully animated pre-rendered sprites, while WC3 is typical early 3d. Gameplaywise, they are fairly similar. WC3 has much more emphasis on hero upgrading with equipment etc, in SC, you do get hero units, but they are simply stronger versions of various base units.

If you liked WC3, and you never played Starcraft, it's a no brainer. You can get the battlechest with SC and Brood Wars plus both hint books for something like $20 at any store that carries PC games. I even saw one in Best Buy not long ago..

[Hardin]

Oh so someone that likes playing a real RTS then? ;)

Ah I see you're a believer as well. Cheers! :beer:

[Neural Net]

Ah I see you're a believer as well. Cheers! :beer:

Nothing to believe it's just a fact. :beer:

[SteveLord]

Without StarCraft...Korea would have never been put on the map.

[IrishAssassin]

I started playing again with some friends, it's really fun and takes alot of skill. If you want to watch some videos check out Pimpest Plays on youtube.

[Kuroimaho]

Can't wait to put my hands on it, what took them so long ?

[freakdiablo]

Starcraft from what I can tell was more fun than TA , can someone compare the two and give pro's and con's to someone who has never played either of them?

You sir/madam should be found and forced to suffer a horrible death. I find TA just as much if not more fun then starcraft (yes, I had TA plus all the expansions AND the starcraft battlechest, so I played both to their full extent). I still like the look of Starcraft 2 though.

[BlitzPuppet]

wtf is with blizzard and making cartoon graphics? Starcraft had AWESOME graphics for it's day (as I remember playing it all the time).

But this is....come on. I know gameplay is more important than graphics but couldn't they have gone the route of WIC type graphics? :(

[technoViking]

I also kind of wish they switched up the graphics some, took a step up...but it seems they wanted to keep the save look/feel as sc1 beccause it was so popular

[lordkosc]

i like the look, then again i am in cartoon love ever since tf2...

[pejsaboy]

I think it looks just slightly cartoonish as well. Although, most of the futuristic space/sci-fi shows and movies that I can think of off top of my head [which isn't many] are also kinda cartoonish/fake in some way or another. Even if they are goaled with looking realistic there are cartoonish qualities, like weapon designs, architecture, etc. I don't know if Blizz was just following suit, but IMO the cartoon/obviously fake element somewhat goes hand in hand with the space genre overall.

For my 2 cents, I think it would have killed the game for me had they abandoned the cartoonish-ness for realism. Aside from the fact that they're all more or less MP based, I don't play games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, etc. because I generally don't care for that level of realism in my gaming. Gimme a BFG, an inventory full of swords, armor and health potions that no amount of steroids could carry, and I'll be a happy camper :)

[Goateh]

Looks good, never really a starcraft fan. Not really my type of game. I'll give it a go though, blizzard rarely disappoint.

[Remove]

Loved Starcraft. Hate the trend of cartoonish looks to games. Sad that the game looks so poor. sigh

[mage_x]

I'm surprised you guys think the graphics look cartoony. The original screens did, but these look fine to me.

The Zerg video should be released either tonight or tomorrow, btw. It's being shown in Korea sometime soon live.

[bryan_d]

The games seems so "arcadey" especially in the light of games like CoH, Supreme Commander, and Total Conflict. I suppose it will be great for Wii Style gameplay, in that ALL will enjoy; basically the same ingredients of Wow. But this leaves little for "true" RTS players to desire.

[mage_x]

But this leaves little for "true" RTS players to desire.
The graphics leave little for true RTS gamers to desire...? You haven't played the game so how can you even say that?

New cinematic trailer + zerg screen shots here: http://www.sclegacy.com/

9 minute zerg gameplay (laggy korean site) (http://www.thisisgame.com/board/view.php?id=158745&board=&page=&category=104&subcategory=&best=&searchmode=&search=&orderby=)

Zerg looks really good except for those flying pink things. Zergling swarms look exceptionally well.

[Neural Net]

StarCraft is a bit of a joke in terms of RTS - it's primarily a tactical not strategical based game - sure it's popular but its scope is severely limited. The cartoon like graphics give an impression of this and well that impression isn't far off from the reality.

[zexmarquies01]

Honestly, i don't see why everyone is so up in arms over the graphics of this game for multiple reasons...

First off, This game won't require everyone to go out and make sure they have an SLI/Crossfire system. The system requirements will be able to be lower than Supreme Commander's requirements.

Also, if this game's graphics were much better, Then not only would you have to upgrade, but if you can't upgrade and play on your current system, Constant slow-downs would screw you big time during online matches. Which online/Lan matches is the heart of StarCraft.

Also...i think alot of people's expectations about graphics is pretty high. People expect nothing less than Crysis style graphics...but then complain when their computer can hardly run it on Medium settings. And developers end up being stuck spending more time making all the shiny graphics, instead of them being able to focus on Gameplay, Story, Mechanics, Bugs...etc.

( I realize that games like Crysis push companies like Nvidia and ATI to make better graphics cards, and causes us to buy them. Its the economy of the graphics market. I'm just saying that people seem to expect nearly every game to have jaw-dropping graphics. Because if it doesn't, people act like its not worth their time )

And finally...why do people expect blizzard to do anything different than from what they have done in the past? Blizzard hasn't been known for releasing a game that forces a large portion of their market to upgrade machines. They release games with just enough graphics to make sure it can stay alive for a few years, without too many complaints, while making sure that a large majority of their market doesn't have to do massive upgrades to their computers.

Its a simple concept. The less people have to upgrade to play a game, the more likely it is that people will actually play the game. When you force the consumers to have to upgrade, you end up limiting yourself to a much smaller market.

oh well...just my 2 cents.

[AngelfireUk83]

Whats so great about the game anyway? I never got into Starcraft.

Awwww that looks awesome I cant wait for this game and to the post in my quote are you kidding me. StarCraft was well known for being 1 of the best games to have balenced units each of the 3 species always had 1 unit that could kill another quicker but be killed by another unit.

And in South Korea its absoutly massive millions still play StarCraft today and they have competitions for massive cash wins.

Also Blizzard have stated during there annoucement of the game that they will make it work with a ATi 9800 Pro and it wont use DX10 but DX9 thats a slap in the face towards VISTA aint it.

[Hardin]

The graphics leave little for true RTS gamers to desire...? You haven't played the game so how can you even say that?

New cinematic trailer + zerg screen shots here: http://www.sclegacy.com/

9 minute zerg gameplay (laggy korean site) (http://www.thisisgame.com/board/view.php?id=158745&board=&page=&category=104&subcategory=&best=&searchmode=&search=&orderby=)

Zerg looks really good except for those flying pink things. Zergling swarms look exceptionally well.

I think he was talking about the gameplay.

[mage_x]

He couldn't have been talking about the gameplay since he has not played the game, so the only thing he could've been talking about were the graphics. If he was in fact talking about the game play for some reason, its totally useless since the game is no where near finished and only a few people have played it at the blizzard invitational.

StarCraft is a bit of a joke in terms of RTS - it's primarily a tactical not strategical based game - sure it's popular but its scope is severely limited. The cartoon like graphics give an impression of this and well that impression isn't far off from the reality.
What are you proposing the difference is between a tactical and a strategical game? They are the same thing. Starcraft is most definitely a strategic and tactical game. In what way are you saying the scope of the game is limited?

[Oni]

A friend of mine played it at Blizzcon last year. He said it was like, 5 shades of awesome.

Yeah, I'll be buying it on release day.

[Hardin]

He couldn't have been talking about the gameplay since he has not played the game, so the only thing he could've been talking about were the graphics. If he was in fact talking about the game play for some reason, its totally useless since the game is no where near finished and only a few people have played it at the blizzard invitational.


What are you proposing the difference is between a tactical and a strategical game? They are the same thing. Starcraft is most definitely a strategic and tactical game. In what way are you saying the scope of the game is limited?

We all know the gameplay is going to be very similar to Starcraft 1 so I do think that he was talking about the gameplay, and I would have to agree with him. Starcraft is more arcadish than a real rts like Total Annihilation.

[Neural Net]

He couldn't have been talking about the gameplay since he has not played the game, so the only thing he could've been talking about were the graphics. If he was in fact talking about the game play for some reason, its totally useless since the game is no where near finished and only a few people have played it at the blizzard invitational.


What are you proposing the difference is between a tactical and a strategical game? They are the same thing. Starcraft is most definitely a strategic and tactical game. In what way are you saying the scope of the game is limited?

They are definitely not the same thing. Strategy is the placement of overall forces around the battlefield, tactics are the movement of forces while in a battle. You also have the operational level of warfare. All overlap slightly but are quite distinctive and what matters in StarCraft are tactics above everything else.

[mage_x]

Overall strategy is equally as important as individual unit tactics in Starcraft. There really would not be one without the other. Could you provide an example of how exactly overall strategy is not an important factor? Even if what you are saying is true, why would that be a bad thing?

[Neural Net]

For one, the positioning of bases is in the corners of maps, which means as an enemy it's very difficult to launch surprise attacks unless you use the specific units designed to do so. You also don't have anything near a decent radar system, defense platforms, you can't move and shoot either which leads to either extremely fast players beating everyone else or evenly matched players spamming as many units as possible. It's just not versatile, and this is especially true in the options you have to move units, which is deliberately limited in an attempt to make gameplay as chess-like as possible.

[John G]

What are you proposing the difference is between a tactical and a strategical game? They are the same thing. Starcraft is most definitely a strategic and tactical game. In what way are you saying the scope of the game is limited?

Strategic vs. Tactical in an RTS is pretty much Macro vs. Micro (management). Strategic is deciding what to build, how much, decisions to expand/gather/attack, positioning forces, etc. Tactical is the micro-management of putting those things into action like exactly positioning individual buildings, selecting individual gathering units and putting them on resource nodes, and commanding units in combat at a detailed level in order to maximize their effectiveness.

For good or bad, Starcraft and Blizzard RTS's in general have been very slanted on emphasis towards tactical and micro-management. Strategic elements exist and are important, but they are drowned in a massive requirement for constant micromanagement at the smallest level. Winners in competitive games are usually faster clickers and better micromanagers. Gameplay typically forces concentration on those constant tactical movements rather than big strategic decisions and thinking.

For example, I think the Kohan games had great ideas if they only had a container of Blizzard's polish to put on... Their basic game was very much like a Blizzard RTS's in a lot of ways except that they eliminated lots of micromanagement and added more strategic elements. Building bases was automated to clicking decision making buttons and workers automatically constructed buildings and walls. Towns had automated militia that would defend the town from attack. Individual combat units existed but were created and controlled in "companies" rather than individually. Resource gathering was similarly automatic and was reduced to controlling and building on nodes and keeping them in supply ranges. The end result was a strategy emphasized game where winning came down to large decisions and good judgement along with being able to multi-task like crazy and manage several battles and economic elements simultaneously.

[KillrBuckeye]

Strategy, tactics... it's all semantics IMO. There's much more to SC than focusing on micromanagement of units (a ridiculous asssertion IMO). Sure, at the highest level of play the better micromanagers will win. However, your everyday players must focus on reconnaissance and climbing up the proper tech tree to counter or surprise the opponent. If you make a poor strategical decision against a competent opponent, you're going to get slaughtered regardless of how good your micromanagement skills are.

I'm curious: were any of you very good at SC? I used to play a lot of games on Battle.net (from '99-'02) and was around a ~1250 ladder player. That's not elite by any means, but I could win 90% of non-ladder 1v1 games. I remember at that time there were 2 "factions" of Starcraft players: those who loved playing on unlimited resource maps like Big Game Hunters (BGH) and would turtle to climb the tech tree, and those who liked limited-resource maps like Lost Temple that often required expansion. Personally, I couldn't stand the BGH-only players, but to each his own.

[Roofles]

I'm curious: were any of you very good at SC? I used to play a lot of games on Battle.net (from '99-'02) and was around a ~1250 ladder player. That's not elite by any means, but I could win 90% of non-ladder 1v1 games. I remember at that time there were 2 "factions" of Starcraft players: those who loved playing on unlimited resource maps like Big Game Hunters (BGH) and would turtle to climb the tech tree, and those who liked limited-resource maps like Lost Temple that often required expansion. Personally, I couldn't stand the BGH-only players, but to each his own.

Hah, I played BGH and raced tech tree, which it seems is my usual RTS strategy... Overwhelming forces! But I played a couple 1v1 and 2v2's on just general maps as well. I was okay, probably about average or just above average on B.net in general.

[Hardin]

I liked the unlimited resources maps like BGH because I was a big TA player. I remember one time in Warcraft 3 the game went on so long that we ran out of resources on the map. My only source of income was pillaging with my Wolf Raiders.

[John G]

Strategy, tactics... it's all semantics IMO. There's much more to SC than focusing on micromanagement of units (a ridiculous asssertion IMO). Sure, at the highest level of play the better micromanagers will win. However, your everyday players must focus on reconnaissance and climbing up the proper tech tree to counter or surprise the opponent. If you make a poor strategical decision against a competent opponent, you're going to get slaughtered regardless of how good your micromanagement skills are.

It may be semantics, but it does drastically affect gameplay.

I don't think anyone asserted that SC is only a game of micromanagement, either. There are absolutely critical strategic elements and they can't be ignored.

Others and I are just pointing out the balance between micro and macro in the game which happens to be heavily weighted towards micro compared to some other games. Just consider amount of time spent performing micro/macro functions, or perhaps count clicks between micro/macro. For SC, it might be 75/25 or 90/10...hard to say, depends on where you draw the line and how well some players use the interface to automate. For Kohan games it's more like 40/60 or 50/50.

A person might think that an RTS would be boring without all the detailed minutia. Typically games that reduce micro introduce additional macro elements. For example, Kohan economies are much more complicated with 5 different resources and Gold being the only one that stockpiles - everything else is an economic in/out rate that goes with an intelligence in building selection to adapt to specific shortages or surpluses. Supply ranges/zones become important for troops. Combat units/companies are not disposable and are intended to be resupplied. Combat formations become tactically important along with morale and experience. Customizable companies essentially play like having customizable units. There's a lot of extra things to think about while other things were removed.

I do like SC a whole lot and it's pretty far up my "all-time" list. I can just understand why someone might like a different RTS better even if it might not be an as finely polished game.

[Venomos]

I loved SC1 and will probably buy SC2 .... I was ladder ranked #9 at one time so I will be looking to play this against some friends... hehe

[mage_x]

I'm curious: were any of you very good at SC? I used to play a lot of games on Battle.net (from '99-'02) and was around a ~1250 ladder player. That's not elite by any means, but I could win 90% of non-ladder 1v1 games. I remember at that time there were 2 "factions" of Starcraft players: those who loved playing on unlimited resource maps like Big Game Hunters (BGH) and would turtle to climb the tech tree, and those who liked limited-resource maps like Lost Temple that often required expansion. Personally, I couldn't stand the BGH-only players, but to each his own.
I never played B.Net ladder since it was so slow (no speed patch before it became all winbots), but I played Game-i, WGTour, and PGtour. I was 1800 Game-i and A+ levels on WGtour and PGtour when I played.

[John G]

I played SC pretty soon after its release, but I had a PC and dial-up connection that just plain didn't handle internet play very well at all. I would lag a game out and eventually get dropped before being able to finish. I think it was a Cyrix-166 with integrated everything if anyone can remember those…lol. :) I did however play on LANs a number of times with groups of friends and it was probably some of the most fun experiences I've ever had with video gaming.

I didn't get a more modern PC setup until many years down the road. I did go back to SC some to play that multiplayer that wasn't possible for me for so long, but it was a real old game that I never invested enough time and effort into to get good at. Generally, I knew what to do but lacked the practice, experience, and map knowledge vs. all those people who'd been playing for 5+ years. So, my speed of play was usually a step behind most opponents.