Slashdot Log In
Blizzard Announces StarCraft 2
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 19, 2007 01:34 AM
from the my-life-for-aiur-again dept.
from the my-life-for-aiur-again dept.
We'll be returning once again to the world of StarCraft, it appears, and not in the form of a Massively Multiplayer game. Blizzard has announced StarCraft 2 at their packed event in Seoul, South Korea. IGN is liveblogging the event, describing gameplay footage being played as well as full cinematics. From the description of ongoing events there are massive changes to the way the game plays, new units, a physics system within the game engine, and the capability to show over 100 units onscreen at a time. "Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game - nothing in the game is final." Additional coverage from Milky at 1up.
Related Stories
[+]
Blizzard Confirms New Product, May Be Starcraft 2 229 comments
darkhitman writes "According to a Kotaku post yesterday, Blizzard has confirmed that they'll announce a new product at their World Wide Invitation in Korea next month. The statement issued by Blizzard verified that they 'do intend to announce a new product [...] next month" and "plan to revisit [Starcraft] at some point in the future,' but did not confirm the rumor that the new game would be Starcraft 2 — but we can certainly hope."
[+]
StarCraft, Nothing But StarCraft 303 comments
Now that the news has been out for a few days and game journalists have had a chance to chat with the folks at Blizzard, there are a number of new stories detailing parts of the StarCraft II world. A massive press briefing about the game fills in a few more details on the game; only three factions, no new races, the game is built with competitive play in mind, and will run on both XP and Vista. For more nitty-gritty elements, the company held panel discussions on the art design and gameplay elements of the upcoming game. Video from the event is now widely available as well; check out the official trailer, some example gameplay, or the epic 22-minute long developer walkthrough.
[+]
Can Blizzard Top StarCraft? 144 comments
MSNBC is running an interview with Blizzard designer Rob Pardo discussing a number of facets of the upcoming StarCraft II. Informational tidbits include the fact that, unsurprisingly, the game won't be released this year, and some background on the game's long development cycle. "Penny Arcade figured it out! We keep games under code names and we teach developers to refer to games by their code name. And we're just really careful about talking about the game internally. We don't bring external folks through unannounced product areas. But I think even I'm surprised that we were able to keep it under wraps all the way to the end."
[+]
Protoss For a Day 138 comments
1up had a man on the ground at the announcement of StarCraft II to a legion of South Korean fans. James Mielke also had the chance to sit down with the developers of the game for a one-on-one hands-on with everything they're willing to share so far. Includes video with some new footage of the title. From the article: "Dustin Browder admitted that the Black Hole attack was something that would have to be nerfed immediately, as both he and Sigaty laughed at the sight of my entire fleet taking a nosedive in one fell swoop. As I stated earlier, there's still a lot of balancing that needs to go into the game, and this play session was one way for the developers to see what things need it the most. After all, Blizzard has been working on this game for two years already, and we were the first fresh eyes to see the game in a long time, so things that the dev team may now take for granted, are still a surprise to new players. Whether the Black Hole will be nerfed to absorb a limited number of ships, or do a specific amount of damage, or powered-down in some other way hasn't been decided, but the tide of battle will undoubtedly require slightly more skillful play than simply producing a Mothership and hitting 'Black Hole' on the enemy."
[+]
The State of Korean PC Gaming 36 comments
Gamasutra has up a feature on the world of PC gaming in South Korea, a country well-known for their love of online play. Nick Rumas, the author of the piece, takes us further behind the scenes of a country stereotyped by swarms of screaming StarCraft fans. He looks at what is hot on store shelves, discusses the reality of illegal game downloading there, and walks through the ten most popular online games in the country (StarCraft isn't even #1). From the article: "That, in a nutshell, is where the PC gaming industry in Korea currently finds itself. Physical retail is dead, and while that isn't going to change any time soon, it's a rather insignificant issue, because the online market is the only one that really matters here ... The world of PC gaming in Korea may massively dwarf that of consoles, but Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are engaged in their own little war on the peninsula, as well."
[+]
StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info 107 comments
It isn't all World of Warcraft at BlizzCon this year. That little sequel they're making to StarCraft has gotten quite a bit of attention as well. Gamespot has a liveblog transcript of a StarCraft II demo. This one, unlike the last, focuses on the Terrans rather than the Protoss. Several new units and build options are described, along with a bit about the single-player campaign. The campaign is the focus of Kotaku's game coverage, starring Jim Raynor and the crew of the Hyperion. "Part of the campaign in StarCraft II will be focused on Raynor's efforts to make money but taking jobs like this one, missions that ultimately tie into a larger plot. As you earn money, those funds will be put into purchasing technology--upgrades for units and units themselves. Pardo purchased (read: unlocked) the Viking ship for his next mission. This has been done to give players control over the tech progression of the game, instead of following a locked down set of upgrades. Hiking back up to the bridge, Raynor checks out the Star Map. This is where you'll choose your missions. They're much more open ended than in the previous StarCraft campaigns. You'll be able to pick the planet or system you want to tackle next, progressing the story in your own way. Mission briefings provide the summary, objectives, bonus objectives, mission bounty, and recommended technology, so you'll have to choose which best suits your current needs and matches your current level of tech."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
i for one... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:i for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
With respect to your first point, what makes you think that Blizzard is precluded from developing a SC MMO? It's been fairly common knowledge that they've been hiring on for a "next-gen" MMO and it would seem to follow that a focus on the Starcraft universe at the company for the RTS would be a great segue into an MMO. Storylines, concept artists, writers, and so on could very easily serve as a further foundation for your futuristic MMO.
Perhaps, then, instead of complaining about SC2, you might consider taking heart from the fact that Blizzard has once again turned its eye towards the universe we both appreciate and that your hopes for Worlds of Starcraft have never been closer to fruition. Starcraft players the world over have many reasons to rejoice and I'd encourage you to remember that their gain is not necessarily your loss.
cheers.
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Rehash? O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want to know is, will it have a Heroes model (after Warcraft III) or will it drop back to a more traditional model of RTS (just units). Or will it have an entirely new hook? I hope it follows after Warcraft III's model.
However, the reports of having hundreds of zerglings makes it seem like it might be more of a macro scale RTS.
It has some heroes... (Score:5, Interesting)
3:18 - warprey also very effective against structures - very vulnerable to small unit fire - shws warpreys getting wiped out by terran marines. Physics system lets debris from warpreys roll down a ramp. Showing one more unit - warped in in a serious of cubes - giant floating base - called a protoss mothership - can only have 1 at a time - cost big resources - special abilities include timebomb that slows all enemy missiles inside - shows terran missle launcher shooting in projectiles that stop in the field before they reach the ship - when field ends missiles drop the ground - planet cracker attack - giant lasers stream from ship to ground - ship can be moved around while planet cracker laser is active - the ship looks like a metallic, triangular sand dollar - mothership can create a black hole anywhere it wannts to - creates distortion that actually sucks ships in and destroys them - in the demo the black hole destroyed four terran battle cruisers in about ten seconds.
Parent
Re:It has some heroes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
God I hope not. I don't want a WCIII mod with SC skins, I want StarCraft II. It should stand out as unique from both it's predecessor and it's brother in the WC universe.
Parent
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
I too hope it does not have the heros, they're the reason I grew weary of wc3 in a week instead of the 4 years I played sc.
Parent
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)
you only played starcraft for 4 years? I still play it relatively frequently.
I agree with you, though. The more things you have to keep track of and manage, the more difficult the game becomes. It starts to be a chore to play rather than fun. That was the main allure of the SC- it was simple to learn and once you understood the upgrade path, it took a lifetime to master. Broodwars ruined it by adding the extra units further complicating the game. You have to worry about so much more (namely invisible units like the lurkers and the dark templars) earlier in the game.
Heroes are fine, if you don't have to worry about building. That's what I liked about Bungie's Myth games. You didn't have to build anything, you went straight into battle, and if you had a unit that made more kills, he'd get faster and more accurate. It kept gameplay simple, yet dynamic enough to stay fun.
Parent
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:we need more than eye candy (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
Judging by the Diablo->DiabloII sequel, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
Parent
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Starcraft 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
They should look at the original Ground Control for an idea of a good strategy game
Re:Starcraft 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully Starcraft 2 is Improved Starcraft. If their previous release pattern is anything to go by, it should be. Then Starcraft 3 will suck ass, then we'll have World Of Starcraft, which won't suck.
Parent
Re:Starcraft 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Relic (Score:3, Interesting)
If Starcraft 2's going to be a Warcraft 3 with pylons, so be it; it'll probably sell millions in South Korea, and I don't doubt it will be a fine update of the balancing act that was Starcraft. Without something really new in the way ba
Re:Relic (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I'm a huge fan of Relic's work.
Parent
Re:Relic (Score:4, Insightful)
While I loved Homeworld, I thought the basic element they missed that Starcraft had was that the races should be *different*. There should be at least two, preferably 3 races that are unique yet balanced -- not the same units repackaged with a tweak or two. That and I have a pet peeve about "space" physics that include drag -- yeah, yeah, it made the game playable...
Homeworld was quite well done, especially from a UI / controls standpoint. I also felt it had less of the micromanagement requirement that Starcraft and the like had. I'd love to see something like that but with Starcraft-like variety in the races.
Parent
May I be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
My Wife for Hire!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My Wife for Hire!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:My Wife for Hire!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Another crisis averted (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another crisis averted (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Round 2 (Score:4, Funny)
CGI Trailer on YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
Ingame Video on YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Starcraft 2 Website Up (Score:3, Informative)
Screenshots available (Score:5, Informative)
Looks incredibly cool graphically, though at the moment it looks like the gameplay is exactly the same as StarCraft. I wonder if there'll be some gameplay announcements soon.
Don't hold your breath... (Score:3, Insightful)
Appropriate use of a well-used quote (Score:5, Funny)
*whisper: dude, we don't have any overlords*
SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!
Likely no revolutionary gameplay changes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Improving StarCraft is like improving chess - arguably possible, but hardly without upsetting a lot of people. StarCraft is still being played today because as a game, it's one of the most polished and consistent experiences available. It's not truly "real-time", it has little to do with "strategy", it is certainly not trying to be realistic and the graphics suck by today's standard - but that's also true for poker and darts. I feel most of the comments calling for Blizzard to "look to Title X" for new ideas for StarCraft 2 are a little misguided. StarCraft's gameplay is in a class of it's own, people will buy it because it's StarCraft. And they will buy it because StarCraft -even in its current form- is just a damn good game in it's own right. It's just imaginable that, a hundred years from now, people will still enjoy slightly enhanced versions of exactly the same formula, just like we enjoy back gammon thousands of years after its original form was created.
Re:Likely no revolutionary gameplay changes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Starcraft forever (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes, Blizzard isn't really an innovative company and only bets on sure moneymakers, and their Starcraft2 is much like Starcraft, only with prettier graphics, a new story, new units, new AI and physics...but really, isn't that new enough for something that already was a superb game (and, as Blizzard well knows, a huge succes)? I think *many* more would complain if Blizzard had taken Starcraft into directions that completely deviated from the old game, frankly. Imagine they made a MMOG out of it...that would have been completely awful (just as when Beth would make the next TES game into a MMOG; a big mistake - though in that case, multiplayer for 4-8 friends to play in it would be cool). All in all, Blizzard did well not to tinker too much with the concept of the game itself; a huge fanbase would be more inclined to turn their backs on them if they would be *too* cavalier in changing an already established and loved game.
That said, I would like to see Blizzard and EA try out something really innovative with a new game, though. It's a bit sad such huge companies dare less then other, often far more smaller game-developing corporations. Yeah, I know; going for the easy money is always...well, easier. But I can't imagine the game-devs themselves wouldn't like to tackle and try out something totally new too, even in those companies.
Looks like it won't kill lesser PC's either. (Score:4, Insightful)
This means it should be fairly scalable to lower end PC's. Complete opposite to say Supreme Commander which kills even high-end computers, yet isn't exactly great looking - infact it looks worse than 10 year old TA on anything but the highest settings!.
Blizzard did the same with WC3, which ran nicely on my low end laptop back in the day and still looked nice. Kudos to them for putting gameplay, and true art ahead of 'graphics technology'.
oh god (Score:5, Funny)
Starcraft II Pack Torrent (Score:4, Interesting)
Enjoy.
Linux gaming market not really viable yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Supporting Mac OSX on X86 and not supporting Linux is nothing short of Laziness now.
You are mistaken. The migration from PowerPC to Intel has not made a Linux port one bit easier. It has made the Mac market more important as a greater percentage of Macs are now viable gaming systems, especially on the laptop side.
Mac games are not *nix based, they still use proprietary APIs like Carbon and Cocoa to some degree. Also a company like Blizzard that has been supporting Macs for over a decade surely has some internal libraries that are pretty Windows and Mac specific as well. The source code to Mac based games is not really any more compatible with Linux than it was before Apple's Intel migration. All that has happened is that assembly language / SSE from the Windows side does not have to be rewritten in PowerPC / Altivec.
I have to think the game marketshare of Linux is running neck and neck with Apple systems. Blizzard is showing that it is worth it to port to MacOS, so why don't they also feel the same about Linux?
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
Return to concept (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember after playing Starcraft for a while looking at the box and thinking: "That's not how the game actually looks! Those units all have extra spiky parts and the buildings have more attachments and who the hell sends a command center into battle?!" I figured that the shots were from many months before release and they simplified the graphics and abilities as they polished the game.
Well, Starcraft 2 doesn't look exactly like those old screenshots. It's more like a beautiful, glowing, high definition revisit to the original concepts. I wonder how much Starcraft 2 is based on their original vision for Starcraft but with ten times as much computer power and a hundred times as much cash available.
Actually, that sounds like the Star Wars prequels -- an old idea returned to with new technology. Except I have some faith that Blizzard can remake an old idea without adding annoying characters, terrible acting, and boring storylines. Then again, they might add a fourth race....
AlpineR
Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not to say they're both not completely incredible games, which they are. They're just totally square in spite of being so awesome.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the second person who's said that but it's obviously untrue. Blizzard have now announced Starcraft 3, whereas Duke Nukem Forever was announced a long time ago. They've now showed intitial versions of the game, that are subject to change. Duke Nukem Forever did that a long time ago. Neither game has been released.
Re:Looks like Starcraft 1 with new graphics... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unsurprising to see how reminiscent of Starcraft this is. Innovation has never been strength of Blizzard; historically, Blizzard games have never had revolutionary features. Starcraft itself was merely the purest, best manifestation of a RTS formula that was very well established by the mid-90s. Blizzard sticks to refining established gameplay concepts into a perfectly crafted and meticulously balanced gem. This is not intended either as a insult of Blizzard, merely an observation - the studio is obviously very, very good at what it does, and it is rightly rewarded for that by the market. Indeed, the games industry would be much poorer without Blizzard, as it had a hand in popularizing many otherwise overlooked innovations in games, but the fact is that they don't innovate and never have. (The Gauntlet-style RPG slasher was about dead prior to Diablo, and Warcraft 3's appropriation of the hero system from neglected games like Battlecry and Kohan seems to have made it a staple of the RTS genre, etc.)
Parent
Coming from a longtime linux user... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is simply not true. Games for Linux may be more viable than, say, 5 years ago, but it is no means a trivial endeavor to create a cross-platform game that spans Linux, Mac, and Windows. And the Linux desktop market share is still so small there is very little chance it would be profitable. I doubt the profits would even pay for writing an installer RPM, writing Linux-specific documentation, and manning the Linux support calls.
And the fact that all three OS's have x86 implementations doesn't help as you might think. Sure, you might be able to have sections written in assembly that can run in all three targets, but game developers don't need to muck nearly as much as they used to (CPU's are faster, compilers are *much* improved). On the other hand, API's and middle-ware tools are becoming more and more prominent, and depending on which ones you choose and it can have a bit impact on portability.
On the other hand, the bnetd thing *does* piss me off, and I share your frustration. At the time Bnetd was written, battle.net was a horribly broken mess. Bnetd was less of a vehicle for cheating than it was an workaround for when battle.net was down. Honestly I think that Blizzard was embarrassed at being one-upped by a group of part-time OSS hackers.
Parent
Linux game market is not all Linux gamers (Score:5, Interesting)
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
Parent