Starcraft 2 This Year?

Status
Not open for further replies.

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
599
0
18,930
0
I should F***ING HOPE SO! Be heading into DNF territory otherwise (as the first post suggests) not that blizzard would ever run out of money.
 

canceltwc4fios

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2009
27
0
18,580
0
It had better:

1) be LAN multiplayer capabable
2) not contain (evil) desktop raping DRM
3) run on XP Pro
4) be nVidia CUDA friendly

announcing plans? "there is no try"




 

doopydoo22

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2009
6
0
18,510
0
canceltwc4fios said:
It had better:

1) be LAN multiplayer capabable
2) not contain (evil) desktop raping DRM
3) run on XP Pro
4) be nVidia CUDA friendly

announcing plans? "there is no try"
1) It's Starcraft
2) It's Blizzard
3) It's Blizzard
4) Seriously?
 

apmyhr

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
110
0
18,630
0
I don't mind paying for games to reward the company. But I don't think I'm willing to pay for a massivley delayed strategy game with graphics outdated by at least 4 years.
 

ssddx

Glorious
Moderator
[citation][nom]Neo Phoenix[/nom]too many time, i lost my interest in this game.[/citation]
Great games take time to develop. Quite a few people still play the orginal fyi.

[citation][nom]haze4peace[/nom]I can't wait!!! Starcraft is my all time favorite game.[/citation]
Amen to that. I loved the ablility to create custom maps with triggers
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]so another game in episodes .... guess I'll not buy that until I can have a 'complete' package with the full game.[/citation]
I would say this is more like the orgininal Starcraft compared with the add-on pack Brood Wars. I highly doubt you will not get your money's worth.

[citation][nom]doopydoo22[/nom] 1) It's Starcraft2) It's Blizzard3) It's Blizzard4) Seriously?[/citation]
Exactly.

[citation][nom]apmyhr[/nom]I don't mind paying for games to reward the company. But I don't think I'm willing to pay for a massivley delayed strategy game with graphics outdated by at least 4 years.[/citation]
Have you taken a look at some of the screenshots lately? In any case, it was the playability that let the original starcraft realize sucess not breathtaking graphics. The new game seems to have more warcraftesque graphics. Also keep this in mind: with a massive amount of units/creatures/buildings/effects on screen, hyper-realistic graphics could bog-down computers. The other thing to remember, The slighty cartoony graphics seem to match the overall starcraft game. Anything else would be strange.

I will admit that I haven't thought about playing Starcraft in quite a long time; The development went on for a little more than I would have liked. However, I would rather wait a longer period of time then to be disapointed with EA-standard crap.

 

hillarymakesmecry

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2009
293
0
18,930
0
As long as gameply is fun I couldn't care less about graphics.

Game that are in development for so long do end up outdated by release date.

I'm pretty sure Blizzard will sell millions of copies without a problem.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Supreme Commander ruined me for RTS games. No tactical zoom? No want.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Lol... maybe I'm a geek... It's 'Artanis' not 'Antanis' :3

I play the original with my friends a couple times out of the week. He's poor, his computer can run it, and it's fairly easy to understand. I can't wait for SC2 if just for the updated graphics and AI... I'm getting tired of looking at 256 colors, and I want to have more lulzy strategies :-\
 

FlayerSlayer

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2009
82
0
18,580
0
As Miyamoto once said: A game that is released late is still eventually released, but a game that is released bad, will be bad forever.

But truly, a solid decade for this? I got excited, then forgot about it, then hyped again, then frustrated, then eager again, and now I simply cannot muster the interest to care again. Maybe I'll care when it comes out, or maybe I'll be too busy raising grandkids by then.
 

FlayerSlayer

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2009
82
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Spewn[/nom]Supreme Commander ruined me for RTS games. No tactical zoom? No want.[/citation]I know!! But even without full map zoom (and independant minimap scaling and zoom), even without building queues for construction units, even without the larger number of units... I'm just glad we'll be able to select more than 12 friggen units at a time.
 

ssddx

Glorious
Moderator
It was stated that development began in 2003. Since we are into 2009 that would make it 6 +/- years. Not a decade. Do keep in mind that they have other high priority projects which most likely had much of the staff dedicated to sc2 stolen away for a time. I highly doubt it was 6 years of full-speed-ahead devo work.

Supreme Commander was the biggest disapointment in a sequel that I have ever seen. The great thing about the original, total annihilation, was diversity. Both sides had units & structures which were different enough to warrant different strategies. I will admit that the "super units" in SupCom are interesting, and I like the upgrade to the commander unit. However, everything else seemed to me like they stamped out cookie-cutter like units/turrets to make balancing the game easier. Some features were nice, but as a whole it was a disapointment. Well, at least imho.

Yes, koreans & foreign countries do play more than we do in the us. We tend to go through games pretty quick over here. (minus mmorpg-addicted people)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY