PDA

View Full Version : StarCraft 2 is Comming. Yay!



Wolfwood
05-19-2007, 07:18 AM
http://au.pc.ign.com/objects/850/850126.html

Finaly it's gonna be here for all to enjoy ^^
Protoss, Zerg and the Terran are all back. and from what i've seen so far, fans of the orginal are overjoyed.

=[[Wolfwood]]=

MomijiTMO
05-19-2007, 07:22 AM
Woot. Can't wait for it.

Ashminigun
05-19-2007, 10:21 AM
*joins in frenzy...

To all SC fans, rejoice!

Hmmm... Looks promising. I reckon that they will use rotating and zoom in/out view compare to the isometric view in the original SC. From the screenshots, I reckon the requirement for the graphic card is at least DirectX 9, since they going to use Windows XP as the minimum OS requirement.

Since it been announced that it gonna be officially release in 2008, hopefully it will be release on time without any major setback/postponed or end up like Ghost that been put on hold.

'nough said...

-Batman-
05-19-2007, 12:06 PM
First, I D:
Then, I ;_;
Then, I =D
Then, I X_X

NEED. GAME. NOW.

About TIME Blizzard remembred Warcraft wasn't it's only game. Or will this get canceled as well?

Ashminigun
05-19-2007, 12:15 PM
*joins in the frenzy...

LOL Easy there, Deadpool

It's too early tell that, but we hope they able to pull through with this one.

Too bad they officially announced that there are only three different race campaigns for this installment unlike there's other one like we learned in the Broodwar

'nough said...

Sagat
05-19-2007, 12:16 PM
I almost went through the roof when I read this when I went to add a gamecard to my WoW account.

No way they would cancel something this big, and with this much of a fan base. It would be disastrous for them to do so now.

I know its a long while off, but now I am looking forward to D3...

I may actually pre-order this game and stand in line with the rest of the nerds around midnight waiting to get my hands on the first copies. Yes. Yes I want this game that much.

Regex
05-19-2007, 12:20 PM
I just hope they don't mess this up the way they did with Warcraft 3. But this has been a long time coming.

Khanxay
05-19-2007, 12:47 PM
It best come with a map editor. I'd spend most of my time on that.

Wolfwood
05-19-2007, 01:28 PM
i can't imagine it being canceled. to many fans would be out to kill them if they teased us like that ^^;
there's a trailer out for it with a short clip involving a marine getting geared up and quick flashes of the other races and battles going on. youtube probably already has it.

=[[Wolfwood]]=

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-19-2007, 10:49 PM
Designed to be the ultimate competitive real-time strategy game, StarCraft II features the return of the Protoss, Terran, and Zerg races, overhauled and re-imagined with Blizzard's signature approach to game balance. Is this is joke? Blizzard is the company that brought "Zerg Rush" into the lexicon. I haven't bothered to play to play anything by Blizzard since Starcraft simply because the game was so damn unbalanced.

Sagat
05-19-2007, 11:38 PM
I found SC around 1.10 was it? To be balanced... however Bliz too often opts for nerfing everything until nothing is unique instead of trying to actually balance ...

Nonetheless... I will fight other people in line for this game.

Regex
05-20-2007, 01:21 AM
That's why Starcraft was so great. They successfully balanced all the races.. Hell, that was my biggest argument about why I liked it better than Command & Conquer and Age of Empires. They made the races very very different from each other, and still balanced to where any race can beat any other. If you can't survive a Zerg rush, then RTS is just not the genre for you.

WoW is a lot harder to balance, and you really can't compare it. They have been trying, and considering how it was in beta, I think they did a really good job.

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-20-2007, 01:46 AM
That's why Starcraft was so great. They successfully balanced all the races.. Hell, that was my biggest argument about why I liked it better than Command & Conquer and Age of Empires. They made the races very very different from each other, and still balanced to where any race can beat any other. If you can't survive a Zerg rush, then RTS is just not the genre for you.
WoW is a lot harder to balance, and you really can't compare it. They have been trying, and considering how it was in beta, I think they did a really good job.

The problem I had with Starcraft was that base defense always seemed a losing proposition. Structures were weak and crumbled too quickly, and the price seemed too high. What I like about C&C and AoE is the fact you can actually build your defenses to the point that it's hard to be effectively attacked. You have a choice between early aggressiveness and later near-invulnerability. Starcraft seemed to be about resources and rushing exclusively. Simply raising armies and throwing them at each other.

bakakame
05-20-2007, 01:47 AM
The problem with StarCraft is that stradegy is optional.

You can play with a good stradegy, and it's a lot more fun that way, but too often it's a degenerate form of building runts until you can make the big units, then sending the runts to their death to free up supply limit for more big units.

I don't know exactly how many games have been played over battle.net and lans, but I'd guess well over half of them were played as either zergling/drone rush, or fortify the base until you have a couple dozen BC's or carriers to lay waste to the enemy bases.

I'm hoping that in SC2 they'll change that and make sure your starting units still have SOME value 15 minutes into the game, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit:

On a side-note, it'll probably be a long time, if ever, that they make a Diablo 3. Plenty of people seem more than willing to buy WoW, pay a monthly fee, and spend 50+ hours a week on it. Diablo 3 doesn't sound like it would make much of a splash anymore.

Wolfwood
05-20-2007, 02:43 AM
i find in most Blizzard RTS games, the best defence is a good offence. i did like the protoss defence towers, but they were more a way of keeping the enemy busy till i got actual troops there.

aslong as it stays balanced i'll be happy. (i also wonder how long it'll be till countless people have messed with it and made tower defence games with it :P )

=[[Wolfwood]]=

Regex
05-20-2007, 11:49 AM
The problem I had with Starcraft was that base defense always seemed a losing proposition. Structures were weak and crumbled too quickly, and the price seemed too high. What I like about C&C and AoE is the fact you can actually build your defenses to the point that it's hard to be effectively attacked. You have a choice between early aggressiveness and later near-invulnerability. Starcraft seemed to be about resources and rushing exclusively. Simply raising armies and throwing them at each other.Then you don't know how to use the Starcraft buildings properly. It's a matter of strategically placing the buildings and mixing them with the right defensive units. I had a friend who was convinced of the same thing, and he tried to prove it in a match against me. He played a full rush tactic, expanding quickly, and I showed him how to strategically hold off until I could build the right combination of units to take out his bases one by one.

Really, this guy thought like both of you. He was convinced that Starcraft had one working strategy, and it was too easy to win with it. After the first game, he tried a different "always win" approach, and met the same trouble. After I beat him, he then complained that the game was cheap for not letting him win with his sure methods..


The problem with StarCraft is that stradegy is optional.Completely disagree. It's optional, yes, but you won't win if you take a non-strategic approach against someone who plays with strategy.


I don't know exactly how many games have been played over battle.net and lans, but I'd guess well over half of them were played as either zergling/drone rush, or fortify the base until you have a couple dozen BC's or carriers to lay waste to the enemy bases.That's why I don't play on Battle.net. Everyone used the same damn tactics, and they were too easy to beat. I'm sure the ladder games were different, with all the Koreans who give up eating and peeing to play better, but all the games I played were worthless. I had much more fun playing over LANs with my buddies.


I'm hoping that in SC2 they'll change that and make sure your starting units still have SOME value 15 minutes into the game, but I'm not holding my breath.You've gotta be kidding me. The basic units are some of the best defensive units in the game. You don't use them to go attack the enemy so much as you use them to protect your base from when they come after you. If you get rid of them, it's no wonder people like Manhattan think that defense is too weak.

Niome!
05-20-2007, 01:00 PM
It best come with a map editor. I'd spend most of my time on that. It will, details below:
Fast-paced, hard-hitting, tightly balanced competitive real-time strategy gameplay that recaptures and improves on the magic of the original game.

Three completely distinct races: Protoss, Terran, and ZergNew units and gameplay mechanics further distinguish each race

Groundbreaking single-player "story-mode" campaign

Vibrant new 3D-graphics engine with support for dazzling visual effects and massive unit and army sizes

Full multiplayer support, with new competitive features and matchmaking utilities available through Battle.net

Full map-making and scripting tools to give players incredible freedom in customizing and personalizing their gameplay experience.

I hope they implement the option to include your own skins, models and change everything, complete-conversion modifications for Starcraft 2 would be magnificant. Remember those Dungeons & Dragons custom maps?


Originally Posted by Manhattan_Project_2000 http://www.animeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.animeforum.com/showthread.php?p=1684636#post1684636)
The problem I had with Starcraft was that base defense always seemed a losing proposition. Structures were weak and crumbled too quickly, and the price seemed too high. What I like about C&C and AoE is the fact you can actually build your defenses to the point that it's hard to be effectively attacked. You have a choice between early aggressiveness and later near-invulnerability. Starcraft seemed to be about resources and rushing exclusively. Simply raising armies and throwing them at each other.

At the least, Regex's preaches my opinions exactly. Base defense wasn't about each of the factions buildings in the defense but a mixture of your races own units in conjunction to stave off attacks from the ground and air. If you're going to be rushed by a fleet of Protoss Carriers, employ Ghost's and use Lock to disable them. Likewise with ground units deploying Lurkers and Siegecannons.

Obviously you've spent so much of your starting minerals and vespene gas in the vicinity on base structures that you've forgotten Starcraft is about expansion, attrition, and maneuvering all at once. Unlike Age of Empires and other RTS's, you cannot huddle down in your base forever because your opponent will no matter how much his attacks fail he'll be able to recuperate his forces even larger and what? You ran out of resources.

Also, this talk about strategy is a bit loose. The game is strategy and is about strategy. Huddling like a turtle in your base not expanding is strategy and building a diverse force of units expanding to other resources is a strategy mucho better than what you've been doing...

Could you explain to me Regex what you mean by non-strategic? Because if you're not contemplating strategy than aren't you sitting their idle or doing mechanical gameplay?

It's games like Age of Empires that encourages players to sit inside their mega-built up walls with arrays of archers and catapults that makes Starcraft a compelling game of risk and seizure.


You've gotta be kidding me. The basic units are some of the best defensive units in the game. You don't use them to go attack the enemy so much as you use them to protect your base from when they come after you. If you get rid of them, it's no wonder people like Manhattan think that defense is too weak.

It depends on the race, I don't consider Hydralisk to be basic because they require vespene gas and good infrastructure to keep them streaming out though Protoss Zealots and Terran Marines are the backbone of any defense. In my world I label basic units as some of the best offensive units provided you bring them in numbers. It's stuff like Siegecannons, Lurkers and Dragoons involving them with your races base defenses that makes them arguably the best, but you said basic so.

http://www.sclegacy.com/ This site lists what is happen' with Starcraft 2.

"StarCraft 2 story takes place 4 years after the events of Brood War."

And heres the offical website. http://www.starcraft2.com/

bakakame
05-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Completely disagree. It's optional, yes, but you won't win if you take a non-strategic approach against someone who plays with strategy.

That's why I don't play on Battle.net. Everyone used the same damn tactics, and they were too easy to beat. I'm sure the ladder games were different, with all the Koreans who give up eating and peeing to play better, but all the games I played were worthless. I had much more fun playing over LANs with my buddies.

You've gotta be kidding me. The basic units are some of the best defensive units in the game. You don't use them to go attack the enemy so much as you use them to protect your base from when they come after you. If you get rid of them, it's no wonder people like Manhattan think that defense is too weak.

I suppose better wording would have been the vastly common, and usually most effective stradegy.

And yea, the starting units do become mostly worthless. Zealots only become effective if you have enough of them to do damage before they get mowed down, or attacking an undefended outpost, and Marines are useless outside of bunkers.

Good stradegy takes a LOT of micromanagement, it's hard to keep up. I think most of the games actual stradegy is just in resource management.

Well, ok I suppose time management is going to make it more strategic. I'm betting that those people you play against tried one of the draw out the battle stradegies mentioned earlier. A decent attack before they build up a large fleet of carriers or whatever is an easy counter to that play philosiphy, but combat itself favors a concept of just using better units. If 2 dozen BC's show up on your doorstep while you have a nice variety of other units, you won't recover.

Overall I'm just complaining that the actual encounters lack the depth of stradegy that other games provide. StarCraft just tastes watered down when set beside C&C and the likes.

Eris
05-20-2007, 02:54 PM
The problem I had with Starcraft was that base defense always seemed a losing proposition. Structures were weak and crumbled too quickly, and the price seemed too high. What I like about C&C and AoE is the fact you can actually build your defenses to the point that it's hard to be effectively attacked. You have a choice between early aggressiveness and later near-invulnerability. Starcraft seemed to be about resources and rushing exclusively. Simply raising armies and throwing them at each other.

The problem with Starcraft is that is that you have to micromanage your units to the point of silliness. That makes employing any form of tactics very difficult, and since strategy is the tactics of tactics, all attempts at any advanced strategy will fail terribly, and break down into what is known as "real time strategy".

As for rushes: They're essentially blitzkrieg adapted to Starcraft. So, what does one do about that? One employs tried and proven anti-blitzkrieg tactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_tactic) against them.

Sagat
05-20-2007, 03:37 PM
I found SC to be more about macro then micro, then again I played as Zerg.. now Frozen Throne, that game pissed me off ... Korean players with lightning reflexes would defeat someone using superior tactics and strategy.

Just as long as they don't make it a W3 .. I am happy.

Niome!
05-20-2007, 06:24 PM
I don't consider it Blitzkrieg but rather Attrition warfare at best.

Are the units in massive numbers destroying the base defense at once or are large groups deliberately bypassing the base defenders in pursuit for a specific target ie workers, pylons, depots or overlords?

Theres a difference between Maneuver and Attrition Warfare and the Zerg Rush is usually attrition-based. Destroying your enemies ability to fight.

I agree Starcraft was a very micromanagement game although it came down to the games interface, Starcraft didn't allow you to access every units ability when you rounded them up and you had to start clicking individually ad mist a fight, sometimes sitting outside the enemy base and activate your abilities.

Eris
05-20-2007, 07:08 PM
Are the units in massive numbers destroying the base defense at once or are large groups deliberately bypassing the base defenders in pursuit for a specific target ie workers, pylons, depots or overlords?


Well, that usually is my MO when I rush. Completely ignore defenses and smash builders and command center. There is no argument for why one would want to bother take down the defenses -- if anything, your units will take more damage in that process, not to mention it buys your enemy time in which s/he can build more defenses / units.

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-20-2007, 10:38 PM
At the least, Regex's preaches my opinions exactly. Base defense wasn't about each of the factions buildings in the defense but a mixture of your races own units in conjunction to stave off attacks from the ground and air. If you're going to be rushed by a fleet of Protoss Carriers, employ Ghost's and use Lock to disable them. Likewise with ground units deploying Lurkers and Siegecannons.

Obviously you've spent so much of your starting minerals and vespene gas in the vicinity on base structures that you've forgotten Starcraft is about expansion, attrition, and maneuvering all at once. Unlike Age of Empires and other RTS's, you cannot huddle down in your base forever because your opponent will no matter how much his attacks fail he'll be able to recuperate his forces even larger and what? You ran out of resources.

Huddling in your base indefinitely in the AoE only works against the computer. Any decent human can crack a hole in your base and pillage your innards in less time then it takes to read this sentience. Preventing them from doing so is called strategy. It's a heady mix of base planning, protecting your own workers, and strategically stealing up the resources (Ore and Relics especially). And then you go kill the opposition.

That said... if you think resources are too common in AoE on anything but the "High" setting, you're insane. Half the time, I have to get my ore from the market to finish my base and/or build siege engines to tear down the enemy's. Same thing with the resources in C&C on the most of the maps (excepting ones with oil derricks- which of course, are fun and easy to destroy).



Also, this talk about strategy is a bit loose. The game is strategy and is about strategy. Huddling like a turtle in your base not expanding is strategy and building a diverse force of units expanding to other resources is a strategy mucho better than what you've been doing...
In Starcraft, Rushing is the most common and most effective strategy. However, it isn't necessarily the "best" strategy. What I'm saying is that the game seemed biased towards it. The general consensus is that zerging is cheap, easy, and common. And (in my opinion, although it is shared by many) it makes the game unfun to play.

Could you explain to me Regex what you mean by non-strategic? Because if you're not contemplating strategy than aren't you sitting their idle or doing mechanical gameplay?
I can’t explain what I meant by “non-strategic” because I never said that. Zerging, technically, is a strategy. By far the most common one and the one requiring the least skill. It's the RTS equivalent of button mashing. And it qualifies as "sitting their[sic] idle or doing mechanical gameplay".


It's games like Age of Empires that encourages players to sit inside their mega-built up walls with arrays of archers and catapults that makes Starcraft a compelling game of risk and seizure.If AoE were anything like that gross oversimplification, no one would have ever won. We'd all still be stuck on the first skirmish. Nice straw-man, though.

[Keep in mind, this portrayal is biased towards defensive playing- my playing. There are TONS of people who play AoE and C&C extremely aggressively. Rushing is just as valid a strategy in these games. Just not one I enjoy playing so much.]

Eris
05-21-2007, 07:41 AM
[QUOTE=bakakame;1685209]Good stradegy takes a LOT of micromanagement, it's hard to keep up. I think most of the games actual stradegy is just in resource management.[QUOTE]

In real warfare, orders are broken down from general instructions (eg. invade poland) to more detailed instructions (move tanks to the polish border) to even more detailed instructions (drive 20 clicks northeast and await instructions) through a command hierarchy. No real general would waste his time micromanaging individual units like in stracraft. That's a complete and utter waste of time: Starcraft tries to both have the cake (be a large scale warfare strategy simulator) and eat it (be a war tactics simulator,) but in doing so, it's breaks both aspects.

Regex
05-21-2007, 10:29 AM
No real general would waste his time micromanaging individual units like in stracraft. That's a complete and utter waste of time: Starcraft tries to both have the cake (be a large scale warfare strategy simulator) and eat it (be a war tactics simulator,) but in doing so, it's breaks both aspects.No real general is in space trying to protect his human forces from aliens. It's a game. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fun. The strategy game that it creates is impressive and wonderful. Not realistic.

Light Buster
05-21-2007, 12:43 PM
http://au.pc.ign.com/objects/850/850126.html

Finaly it's gonna be here for all to enjoy ^^
Protoss, Zerg and the Terran are all back. and from what i've seen so far, fans of the orginal are overjoyed.

=[[Wolfwood]]=
Hmm, this is interesting. But Starcraft can't beat the Master of RTS, Command & Conquer. The third installment, Tiberium Wars, has every RTS fans playing C&C more than Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have to wait because C&C started the new RTS genere back then so.....I love C&C more than Starcraft but I still like Starcraft.

xXAltairXx
05-21-2007, 12:46 PM
Hell yea man finally they come out with SC 2

Regex
05-21-2007, 01:38 PM
Hmm, this is interesting. But Starcraft can't beat the Master of RTS, Command & Conquer. The third installment, Tiberium Wars, has every RTS fans playing C&C more than Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have to wait because C&C started the new RTS genere back then so.....I love C&C more than Starcraft but I still like Starcraft.
How do you figure? After Starcraft completely beat out Red Alert in variety, balance, and strategy, none of the Command & Conquer games ever improved significantly. Tiberium Wars was okay, but Starcraft had it beat in all three areas even still.

Eris
05-21-2007, 03:59 PM
No real general is in space trying to protect his human forces from aliens. It's a game. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fun. The strategy game that it creates is impressive and wonderful. Not realistic.

But fun is subjective: I personally think the strategy -- what I find fun in a strategy game -- drowns in all the "impressive and wonderful" micromanagement frenzy of starcraft. It isn't about realism: The homeworld series of games is just as unrealistic as starcraft, but places lets the AI do all the tactical maneuvering, leaving the battle a more abstract player experience.

When a strategy game becomes about which player can click the fastest something has gone wrong.

Regex
05-21-2007, 04:10 PM
But fun is subjective: I personally think the strategy -- what I find fun in a strategy game -- drowns in all the "impressive and wonderful" micromanagement frenzy of starcraft. It isn't about realism: The homeworld series of games is just as unrealistic as starcraft, but places lets the AI do all the tactical maneuvering, leaving the battle a more abstract player experience.

When a strategy game becomes about which player can click the fastest something has gone wrong.
Then I think what you are looking for is this (http://www.dominategame.com/website.php?).

But seriously, I've never ever considered Starcraft to be a "micromanagement frenzy" like some of the more recent RTS games have been. I have always felt like they balanced it correctly. The most I ever noticed was when dealing with Protoss carriers. Aside from that, I'm not sure what you could be complaining about. Some amount of micromanagement always has to be present to make the game interesting, otherwise, you miss out on the main "real time" aspects of RTS.

Eris
05-21-2007, 04:26 PM
Then I think what you are looking for is this (http://www.dominategame.com/website.php?).

But seriously, I've never ever considered Starcraft to be a "micromanagement frenzy" like some of the more recent RTS games have been. I have always felt like they balanced it correctly. The most I ever noticed was when dealing with Protoss carriers. Aside from that, I'm not sure what you could be complaining about. Some amount of micromanagement always has to be present to make the game interesting, otherwise, you miss out on the main "real time" aspects of RTS.

What I feel is lacking is the ability to order units into formations. You can at best attempt to scatter the units out a bit through micromanagement, with decent results, but it's still weak compared to how it could be. Most of the time, I find my units running about in a disorganized lump, with the ranged units infront of the melee units and support and siege units taking point, and the scouts in the rear. You can sort of fix things by micromanaging, but all that -could- be done by the computer.

Sagat
05-21-2007, 04:36 PM
Who knows, formations may be one of the factors SC2 is going to have .. it would make a lot of sense and would be interesting to see not only the Terran formations, but what the Zerg may have as well

Eris
05-21-2007, 04:49 PM
Who knows, formations may be one of the factors SC2 is going to have .. it would make a lot of sense and would be interesting to see not only the Terran formations, but what the Zerg may have as well

Zerg is the only race where the "lump" formation makes some sort of sense: They've got that sort of of unstoppable invasion thing going, and even do it in the cutscenes. But human warfare without formations, that makes baby Napoleon cry.

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-21-2007, 06:07 PM
I think the Zerg, at least in theory, should either rely on just having more bodies then everyone else, or break up into small, guerilla-type groups and attack flanks, depending on terrain and how many troops they have. Starcraft would make an interesting TBS like, say, Panzer General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General).

bakakame
05-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Biggest issue with being Zerg is your limitation is ordering them around. Swarm tactics work much better when I can tell all 80 'Lings to move in at once, instead of trying to hotbutton 12 at a time and have them running into each other and just generally forming a single file line by the time they get to their target.

That's another thing I wanna see changed in SC2. Again, if there is a formational advantage to using them that way it wouldn't be that bad, but as has been said formations are another thing that's lacking.

Before I go too far here, I'm not trying to say that StarCraft was a bad game. The times that I spent playing it were very fun, and it's a fairly good intro to the RTS genre. I just wouldn't call it the "cream of the crop."

Light Buster
05-23-2007, 11:07 AM
How do you figure? After Starcraft completely beat out Red Alert in variety, balance, and strategy, none of the Command & Conquer games ever improved significantly. Tiberium Wars was okay, but Starcraft had it beat in all three areas even still.
Well, Command & Conquer has been the long running series. They started in 1990s and have a bunch of games, EA even made Command & Conquer: The First Decade. (All the C&C games from the very first C&C to C&C Generals: Zero Hour) Unlike Starcraft, the Starcraft series only has two games (Or three if you count on Starcraft 2). Tiberium Wars brings back classic gameplay and live action cutscenes and that's actually good. Blizzard announced Starcraft 2 after 10 years from the original release from 1998 but not much people are intrested because of the release of Tiberium Wars which attracted most RTS players. Yeah, I'm intrested in Starcraft 2 but I think Starcraft lost all of its popularity from the ten years of disapperence. Starcraft 2 will have to get good reviews if the Starcraft series will have to match Tiberium Wars, win my heart back, and redeam themselfs.

xXAltairXx
05-23-2007, 11:10 AM
I wanna see them come up with a new alien race. They have the Terran humans, The Protoss Aliens, and The Zerg aliens, lets see something new like the Predators! XD or the Aliens!! ((From Aliens The Movie))

The Nightingale
05-23-2007, 11:15 AM
I wanna see them come up with a new alien race. They have the Terran humans, The Protoss Aliens, and The Zerg aliens, lets see something new like the Predators! XD or the Aliens!! ((From Aliens The Movie))

yes i agree with him

xXAltairXx
05-23-2007, 11:17 AM
Bwahaha ^_^

Dude then we would have AVP All over again XD

Zerg Vs. Aliens Hell yeah! i wanna see that badarse fight.


Private: ((Twilight answer PMs Please))

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-23-2007, 08:25 PM
I wanna see them come up with a new alien race. They have the Terran humans, The Protoss Aliens, and The Zerg aliens, lets see something new like the Predators! XD or the Aliens!! ((From Aliens The Movie))

Basically, the Zerg are the Aliens (or, at least, borrow plenty from them). You can't tell me you haven't noticed the resemblance?

Sandro
05-23-2007, 09:26 PM
Post removed due to language

Niome!
05-23-2007, 11:30 PM
I think the Zerg, at least in theory, should either rely on just having more bodies then everyone else, or break up into small, guerilla-type groups and attack flanks, depending on terrain and how many troops they have. Starcraft would make an interesting TBS like, say, Panzer General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General).

I don't get it. You want the Zerg to fight like Vietnamese in the Vietnam War?

Almost the entirety of Zerg are brainless animals mutated, most of them have physical features to attack than corrosive acid like some do.

They don't have manipulative hands or even fingers, they don't speak except the Cerebrates and Overmind himself an actual sentient language and everything else. The biased - primitive animals which pounce and ravage their opponents. They're not going to use any pre-designated tactics or anything of the sorts.

From my knowledge of Panzer Generals, the Terran UED and Confederates with the Protoss intertwined would do better in such a game.

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-24-2007, 01:23 AM
I don't get it. You want the Zerg to fight like Vietnamese in the Vietnam War?

Almost the entirety of Zerg are brainless animals mutated, most of them have physical features to attack than corrosive acid like some do.

They don't have manipulative hands or even fingers, they don't speak except the Cerebrates and Overmind himself an actual sentient language and everything else. The biased - primitive animals which pounce and ravage their opponents. They're not going to use any pre-designated tactics or anything of the sorts.

From my knowledge of Panzer Generals, the Terran UED and Confederates with the Protoss intertwined would do better in such a game.
No, I'm talking about pack tactics, like wolves. Wolves don't need consciousness to use cover, mobility, and make coordinated attacks- they do it naturally. If you'd like a different example, think the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park.

paralich
05-31-2007, 12:01 AM
Starcraft 2 will revive PC as a gaming platform :) I hope they won't make it "warcraft 3 in space" or just clone warhammer40k...

Eris
05-31-2007, 07:56 AM
No, I'm talking about pack tactics, like wolves. Wolves don't need consciousness to use cover, mobility, and make coordinated attacks- they do it naturally. If you'd like a different example, think the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park.

But they are also being controlled by a higher intelligence, so you could also see some sort of hive-mind style tactics, where all units move as one.

Manhattan_Project_2000
05-31-2007, 11:34 AM
Yeah, but I meant that the guerrilla tactics would be used when they didn't have enough troops. Or in terrain where the hive tactics aren’t possible.

Eris
05-31-2007, 12:51 PM
Yeah, but I meant that the guerrilla tactics would be used when they didn't have enough troops. Or in terrain where the hive tactics arenít possible.

That's essentially what they already do with burrow et. al.

氷の動物
06-01-2007, 01:43 AM
Well, Command & Conquer has been the long running series. They started in 1990s and have a bunch of games, EA even made Command & Conquer: The First Decade. (All the C&C games from the very first C&C to C&C Generals: Zero Hour) Unlike Starcraft, the Starcraft series only has two games (Or three if you count on Starcraft 2). Tiberium Wars brings back classic gameplay and live action cutscenes and that's actually good. Blizzard announced Starcraft 2 after 10 years from the original release from 1998 but not much people are intrested because of the release of Tiberium Wars which attracted most RTS players. Yeah, I'm intrested in Starcraft 2 but I think Starcraft lost all of its popularity from the ten years of disapperence. Starcraft 2 will have to get good reviews if the Starcraft series will have to match Tiberium Wars, win my heart back, and redeam themselfs.

I really think that quality is always better than quantity and I must say that some of the C&C series was definitely not all that great in overall quality or being interesting/new enough to warrant playing.

And you question the reviews of Starcraft 2 coming from Blizzard who has basically been given PC game of the year on every major product they've shipped (http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/awards.shtml) I really don't see how Blizzard could screw this one up.

Khanxay
06-01-2007, 09:19 PM
Well, Command & Conquer has been the long running series. Soo? FF has been going on long...are they always good?


Yeah, I'm intrested in Starcraft 2 but I think Starcraft lost all of its popularity from the ten years of disapperence.10 years of disappearence? You forget the koreans. And starcraft will always be a lan favorite.


Starcraft 2 will have to get good reviews if the Starcraft series will have to match Tiberium Wars, win my heart back, and redeam themselfs.
Tiberium isn't the only one to compete against. Warhammer: Dawn of War/Winter Assault/Dark Crusade has been doing really well.

Guza
06-13-2007, 01:16 PM
aww sweetness, i cant wait...i also hear that fallout 3 is coming to so im like double hyped for these games

Relic
06-16-2007, 06:37 AM
I am not sure if this has already been mentioned but if any of you are planning on going to BlizzCon (August 3-4 at the Anaheim Convention Center, California) they are giving out the only Available public beta keys at the door 1 for each ticket

though unfortunately if you were not already planning on going tickets are already sold out i barely managed to get mine in time

Arculon
06-16-2007, 07:24 PM
Yeah can't wait for Starcraft 2, i've always been a fan of the original, just hope that it lives up to expectations after all this wait!

Regards,

Arculon

Dragonshaz
06-25-2007, 11:49 AM
Cool,i have seen the trailer of starcraft 2,it rocks,cant wait to actually own it