Blizzard Confirms New Product, May Be Starcraft 2 229
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."
Re:Reminds me (Score:2, Insightful)
wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, what I would like to see is all of Blizzard's creativity and energy put into Starcraft 2, utilising all of the lessons learned thus far and drawing heavily from the wonderful work that was Company of Heroes. The day I see high-resolution Protoss Zealots taking cover behind a lumbering Reaver while Dragoons skitter between the piles of wreckage in the Terran base I just destroyed will be a wonderous thing. RTS games have come a long way since Starcraft came out and I think it's a shame that we haven't seen another game in the series yet.
Here's hoping we'll be bitching about the system requirements of Starcraft 2 in the near future!
Re:Starcraft 2... but it's an MMO... (Score:2, Insightful)
What this proves... (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase Blizzard: "We're about to announce a new game, and we really want to do something with the Starcraft franchise, but this ain't it."
Rabid fanboi writing article: "Woohoo! Blizz said Starcraft! Blizz said new game! This is it, Starcraft 2 next month!"
It's a shame, because I would really like to see another Starcraft. Unfortunately the fanbois are probably scaring Blizzard away from actually doing it, since they know the first screenshots or videos released from beta will set off a torrent of bad press from people saying "What is this crap? They were saying this was ready for release like two years ago, and this is all they have?"
Re:Not far from the truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't that be a position for their current MMO?
WoW has been running on the same engine since release in late 2004. Many MMOs (Dark Age for example) are constantly updating their game engine. Maybe this is just a new engine for the same MMO.
Can Starcraft 2 ever meet expactations? (Score:5, Insightful)
People will complain that Starcraft 2 is too different from the original.
Scenario B) The game is a minimalist upgrade. Basically being the original but in 3D, with the intention of not trying to break a tried and true formula.
People will complain that Starcraft 2 is too similar to the original (see reception of Command and Conquer 3).
World of Starcraft? WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
World of Starcraft? Seriously? Why the hell does everyone keep saying World of Starcraft? This naming convention makes sense for Warcraft or Diablo, where all battles are fought on one world, but not for Starcraft!!! There are at the very least three different planets (Worlds) that will have to exist (one for each race), and we know from the original game that there are far more worlds involved in the storyline than just the three homeworlds.
I can guarantee you 100% that this game will NOT be named World of Starcraft, regardless of what type of game it turns out to be. That would not make any sense to fans for this brand, and Blizzard knows that. Something like Universe of Starcraft or Galaxy of Starcraft (which has been mentioned by a few) would make MUCH more sense. Use your heads instead of being stuck in a naming convention that won't work for this brand for obvious reasons.
Welcome to the World of Slashdot.
Re:Blizzard announces... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard announces... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please, let it NOT be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold up there. If you're implying that Starcraft doesn't require tactical competence then perhaps you're dealing with some strange definition of tactics that I was unaware of.
Tactics: Tactics is the collective name for methods of winning a small-scale conflict, performing an optimization, etc. This applies specifically to warfare, but also to economics, trade, games and a host of other fields such as negotiation.
That kind of tactics is essential in Starcraft. Have you ever seen a really good game of Starcraft? It's one of the most fascinating, tactical, and fast-paced games I've ever seen at the higher levels. From micro-management of units (try controlling the individual targeting of every unit in a squad, in real time) to precise maneuvering, ranging and timing Starcraft at its best requires incredible tactical thought. Fine-grain options are weighed out and balanced, opponents predicted or deceived, tens of units of crystal measured against seconds in a struggle against a cunning and relentless adversary (the other guy).If that's not tactics, what is?
Re:Not far from the truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure Starcraft II (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Korea" is the key, a country known for its massive amount of current Starcraft players.
It will be at least Starcraft related.
Re:What this proves... (Score:4, Insightful)
"we have a secret we'll be reealing next month."
"We Really like Starcraft."
the third part, with no reading between lines required, quite plainly says "But the secret we plan to reveal next month has nothing to do with Starcraft."
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard announces... (Score:5, Insightful)
Graphic wise, Starcraft was far superior to TA. Good 2d art is much better than simple 3d art. I can still look at Starcraft today and enjoy the graphics. It may be outdated, pixel-wise, but it is still art. TA however has aged significantly.
The custom AI was indeed a weak point of starcraft, but starcraft single player still had its charms with its better campaigns. Custom single player games was interesting also, mainly to see how many AIs you could defeat. You can't claim to have mastered starcraft single player until you have won 1vs7 games with all three races. Terran being the easiest (Bunkers+Siegetanks), protoss medium difficult (photon cannons+shield batteries and a good map) and zerg the toughest. (Quick expansion and tech to Guardians on a map with close expansion and long travel paths). There is no question however, that multiplayer was where Starcraft shined.
As for the better game. Starcraft and TA had completly different focus. TA was an army management game with the focus on strategy, and it did very well at that. Throwing large armies back and forth. Starcraft on the other hand had a few specific things that made it unique among RTS:s, then and now. This is why I consider it the best RTS of all times. These special attributes being
* 3 unique, balanced races. Most RTS games have some difference between the different sides, but Starcraft is to date the only game that I know off that pulled it off that well. The actual mindset changes when switching races. You can actually feel the swarm mentality when playing zerg, or the ability to hold ground as terrans, or the pure power of protoss units.
* Every single unit type matters from start to end. There isn't a single unit in Starcraft that becomes outdated as the game progresses. When it comes to dealing out pure damage, the basic units are the most cost efficent, while more advanced units are used to provide specific advantages. (such as attack range, area effects, health, cloak and flying abilities)
The only problem I found with Starcraft multiplayer was the insistance to play on the fastest game speed. Fastest game speed is simply to fast unless you are a pro player with incredible reflexes. I have always wished that RTS games would include something like a Max Payne style time slower where any player could slow down the game for a certain amount of time (the ability itself recharging over time). It would allow for a quick initial phase of the game, while still providing ample opportunity to use more complex tactics in the heat of battle.
Re:Starcraft 2... but it's an MMO... (Score:3, Insightful)