Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

New Details For StarCraft 2's Zerg

Posted by Soulskill on Mon Aug 25, 2008 08:57 PM
from the expect-more-at-blizzcon dept.
Blizzard had a playable demo of StarCraft 2 running at Leipzig, and Kotaku's Michael McWhertor had a chance to sit down and spend some time playing the Zerg. The Zerg weren't available in previous demos; the Protoss and Terran campaigns were showcased earlier. GameSpy took the opportunity to interview two Blizzard employees about what people can expect from the game. Gameplay footage is also available which shows a Terran vs. Zerg battle. Blizzard PR rep Bob Colayco had this to say: "One thing that's new, as you go through the campaign... you know, normally in RTS games how they start you off with a couple of units and then it's like, 'Okay, two missions later we're going to give you tanks...' One of the things we're looking at doing with StarCraft II's campaign is putting the choice more in the players' hands. So maybe you like dealing more with infantry? You can purchase those upgrades and make your marines and other infantry stronger. Or else you'll save up the credits you get from the missions to get tanks sooner than you normally could."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] 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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2008, @08:59PM (#24745463)

    For what they did to Kerrigan.

  • What's the rush??!?!
  • Linked video... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MooseMuffin (799896) on Monday August 25 2008, @09:30PM (#24745745)

    ...is in lower resolution than the actual original game, and then made worse by crappy encoding. You'd get a better idea for the game by firing up starcraft 1 than trying to watch this.

    • Re:Linked video... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2008, @10:46PM (#24746493)
    • Re:Linked video... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2008, @11:09PM (#24746669)

      http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39089.html

      Hi-Def video link

      • by Trent05 (70375) on Monday August 25 2008, @10:25PM (#24746265) Homepage

        It always drove me up the wall playing with ppl who INSISTED on being Protoss and INSISTED on playing on a map with pretty much unlimited resources.

        Gee whiz, fighting Protoss yet again on a map that completely negates their weakness ($$). How fun.

        Hopefully they'll put in a few different balancing stats/players into this one.

        • Re:Linked video... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by nasch (598556) on Monday August 25 2008, @11:51PM (#24747041)

          If you're playing Zerg with huge resources, can't you build huge numbers of hydralisks and/or mutalisks and/or guardians, instead of huge numbers of zerglings? I mean, six or eight hatcheries pumping out, say, hydralisks and guardians gets pretty nasty pretty fast. Or heck, Ultralisk rush. It seems to me that it's not so much that Protoss has to spend more money, but that they make fewer, more powerful, more expensive units. But then I'm no champion.

      • Re:Linked video... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by drik00 (526104) on Monday August 25 2008, @10:32PM (#24746339) Homepage

        IANAGP, but to my understanding, until the game engine (specifically in 3d games) is finalized and tuned and tweaked, the frames per second sucks ass, so its not a surprise the showing the game off in lower res so that it runs smoother. Judging only from WoW, they have a firm understanding on large resolutions, and wide-screen, God bless 'em.

        J

        • Re:Linked video... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by PrimalChrome (186162) on Monday August 25 2008, @11:34PM (#24746867)

          You're missing something. Blizzard intentionally limited the original Diablo, Starcraft and Diablo II to small (even for the period) resolutions. Why? Not for optimization. To force a 'level playing field'.

          I've never understood the obsession with competitive Starcraft. It was a clickfest game with very little overall strategy. Age of Empires II and Myth: the Fallen Lords were more along the lines of games that put the Strategy in RTS.

          • bullcrap (Score:5, Insightful)

            by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday August 26 2008, @08:49AM (#24750003) Homepage Journal
            excuse me but age of empires and similar games dont have nothing to do with rts. they are basically "Whomever builds the baddest, fastest unit the most and sends them over, wins". there are small variation in tactics you can do, because every unit has an anti unit, but its nothing like starcraft. also the races, faction units are almost all the same, with only 2-3 different in 15 unit selections. they are basically the same.

            in starcraft you have 3 different races with TOTALLY different units all having totally different abilities.

            no unit has a clear anti unit. there are many different units that can stand against and be an anti unit of a particular unit because of their different abilities.

            and this makes the game an infinite variation of strategy. there are countless ways to win a matchup. you can go mass production, but if your opponent has good micro (management, meaning using units very effectively individually) and uses very little number of units and their abilities perfectly, you are totally screwed.

            no sir, either you dont know zit about strategy, or havent really played starcraft by giving its due.
            • Re:bullcrap (Score:5, Insightful)

              by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Tuesday August 26 2008, @10:10AM (#24750897)
              Any game where players' effectiveness is rated by how many actions per second they can perform is a crappy strategy game. Period. Strategy is about thinking, not how fast you can jump the screen around and send your units in 50 different directions.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Sprite-based games were obviously limited to that resolution, because with the technology sprites could not be scaled for arbitrary resolutions.

              They didn't have to scale it, they could have simply let you see more onscreen at once. They didn't to keep a level playing field.

  • by wonkavader (605434) on Monday August 25 2008, @11:08PM (#24746663)

    If I could change the resolution on good old StarCraft, I'd be very happy.

    I don't want a 3d look. It seems to make things harder to see and it's a waste of processor power. I just want to be able to see more of the map on the StarCraft I have.

    Howabout making a StarCraft 1.9? Blizzard could do that for almost nothing, compared to this new release, and people like me would mail in the checks to get it.

    • by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Monday August 25 2008, @11:20PM (#24746781) Homepage

      WC III uses 3D as well but since only the almost-from-the-top-view is the only good one everyone use that and it look pretty flat. Sure you can look around some stuff, hide a unit behind a tree or building somewhat and it makes ground units very hard to click on when there are lots of air units on top but I'd say it works well.

      It doesn't look as cool as on screenshots from a lower angle and more up close but it works very well for playing the game.

      Also I guess it's easier to support more resolutions and aspect ratios and such when it's rendered vs uses animations.

  • by agristin (750854) on Monday August 25 2008, @11:51PM (#24747037) Journal

    I could see there was a Zerg base and the player was building some Zerg stuff (could barely see what it was). Then some grey blobs came in and pointed some yellow flashing triangles and then the player played poorly, made some Zerg that ate only some of the marines. Then something happend and some tanks came. I couldn't watch anymore because my eyesight was going from trying to focus on the blurry video.

    Here it looked like this:

    "OOO {iii"

    And now you've seen the crummy movie.

  • by TheTornOne (847602) on Tuesday August 26 2008, @12:37AM (#24747421) Homepage
    ***Chirp*** "Nuclear Launch Detected"