Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Blizzard Announces StarCraft 2 550

Posted by Zonk
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blizzard Announces StarCraft 2

Comments Filter:
  • by legallyillegal (889865) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .lagelliyllagel.> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:37AM (#19188683) Homepage
    ...welcome our new ZERGLIasddAS24Y6JNGG-G--SAD9ODASIDAS98244128990WQA NO CARRIER
    • by Clockworkalien (1099495) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:02PM (#19192413) Homepage
      welcome our new overlord overlords?
  • Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgiuca (1040724) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:40AM (#19188695)
    Excellent, so glad it isn't a StarCraft MMO as rumoured.

    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.
    • by Myria (562655) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:43AM (#19188717)
      The Protoss mother ship (from IGN's Charles Onyett [ign.com]):

      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Puff of Logic (895805)

      However, the reports of having hundreds of zerglings makes it seem like it might be more of a macro scale RTS.
      No problem. Since 1998, I've upgraded my system somewhat. I can now spawn as many overlords as necessary!

    • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Derekloffin (741455) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:11AM (#19189065)
      I hope it follows after Warcraft III's model.

      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.

      • Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Longtime_Lurker_Aces (1008565) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @10:38AM (#19190609)
        This is NOT flamebait, this is the sentiment of millions of gamers. I strongly prefer the starcraft style of gameplay to the warcraft 3 style.

        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.
        • Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MyDixieWrecked (548719) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:56PM (#19192357) Homepage Journal
          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.

          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.
    • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geniusj (140174) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @06:01AM (#19189533) Homepage
      Ick. As far as I'm concerned, skip the heroes. It's the reason I didn't get into WC3. I've got enough to think about without micromanaging heroes too.
  • Wow. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:40AM (#19188697)
    Even SC2 beat out Duke Nukem Whenever...
  • Starcraft 2 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ASkGNet (695262) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:40AM (#19188701) Homepage
    I only hope that Blizzard won't try to mix&match genres in an attempt to gain wider audience. The fact that in WC3, the game degenerated into Hero rush is what kept me from playing it.

    They should look at the original Ground Control for an idea of a good strategy game
    • by solios (53048) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:54AM (#19188765) Homepage
      Word. I hated War3 - it slammed all of the most irritating elements of RPGs on top of an RTS and wound up being a severely unenjoyable experience as a result. I can't think of a Blizzard title I've enjoyed less.

      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.
      • Re:Starcraft 2 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dosboot (973832) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:13AM (#19189077)
        WC3 did however make it so you didn't spend half the game clicking peons, you could cast spells easily, and all around had subtle micro improvements. As much as I like starcraft, warcraft 3 was much more accessible. I'm still only a touch better than hopeless at starcraft, whereas in less time with wc3 I can understand the game very well. For me this makes being hero centric and small scale irrelevant, and it is where I want sc2 to be exactly like wc3.
    • They should look at the original Ground Control for an idea of a good strategy game
      Actually, I hope they draw strong lessons from Company of Heroes and the Dawn of War series. Still, I have a lot of faith in Blizzard to make good games, so I'm not too worried.
      • Relic (Score:3, Interesting)

        by StreetStealth (980200)
        Honestly, Blizzard could learn a lot from Relic (the developer of the games you mention). Relic somewhat quietly revolutionized the RTS seven years ago with Homeworld, only to watch the market quickly return to Warcraft mechanics, with Blizzard capping the return in 2002.

        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)

          by Puff of Logic (895805) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:31AM (#19188899)

          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 battles are fought, though, I just can't imagine myself being that excited.
          That's fair enough. I've been saying for a while now that I'd actually be happy with exactly the same damned game with new graphics and maybe some neat physics. Starcraft was released an age ago in gaming terms and it's still resident on my drive simply because it's fun. I know that there are going to be a lot of unreasonable expectations for this game, but I think that as long as Blizzard can retain the core feel and gameplay of the original, they can't go wrong.

          And yes, I'm a huge fan of Relic's work.
        • Re:Relic (Score:4, Insightful)

          by evanbd (210358) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:33AM (#19188909)

          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.

        • Relic: Homeworld and Dawn of War feel like what your get when you cross breed SC with bungies Myth. Everything is upgradable like in SC but tactical options are less diverse. You just have a whole bunch of units almost identical on all sides. It's got a lot more character then say TA or a lot of the also rans but I don't' think relic did much then make a dent gui and a fun game. Less revolution, more bastard offshoot.
    • If a hero rush gets ya I don't think that would have been the only thing that would have frustrated you. Hero rushing is a trade off for building him up since peons are worth little. If you can't fend it off then your relative skill level is very very low. Also the strat is often just to see what your base is like to recon for future tactics. Perhaps they see you are noob and just crush you right there.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Calyth (168525)
      I don't know, all that matter to me is to shift the attention of the (Star|War)Craft fanboys away C&C3 and complaining about how the game economy system doesn't work like they wanted, or how they wanted to see some RPG elements to encourage gamers to keep their units alive.
      I wouldn't say I liked StarCraft. The gaming style isn't something that I was proficient at, but at least it has moments that was enjoyable, both single and multiplayer. WC3 was just all about Creeping and Micromanagement, to the poin
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aasitus (811665)
      I hated the heroes at first too, but later, once I learned to play the game and noticed all the cool tricks you could do with them (and still it was difficult to win a game with just a hero alone, it did require more than that), I began to love it. In the end they probably kept them game interesting for me long after I would have got bored of it otherwise.

      On the other hand, heroes might not fit into StarCraft's world as well as they fit into WarCraft's. We'll see.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Britz (170620)
      Actually the heroes were the whole point of the improvement. With it came whole new strategic elements. In a Starcraft match the only thing matters is who can control the most units and hit the most keys per minute (second). In WC3 strategy matters much more. After all it is called a strategy game.
  • A simple WOOt! is in order I believe.
  • by Karganeth (1017580) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:41AM (#19188713)
    KEKEKEKEKE ZERG RUSH!
  • by Steavis (887731) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:47AM (#19188739)
    ....Or was that "My life for Aiur!" I could never tell what those damn zealots were saying.
  • You'll be able to have an unlimited number of units (if you have the supplies for them) like you can in Command and Conquer?

    Of course then again I love StarCraft for how FAST it plays and how quickly it loads, but I also love CnC for the epic magnitude of some of those "10 minutes no rush" games, which are much bigger in CnC than in StarCraft.

  • by tehSpork (1000190) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @02:58AM (#19188785)
    In other news, the rest of the world released a huge sigh of relief as the Doomsday Clock [damninteresting.com] was turned back. A spokesman for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was quoted as saying "A Starcraft MMO could have ended it all. We may never know how close we came to the complete and utter destruction of society as we know it."
  • Round 2 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nihilgeist (1104329) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:00AM (#19188787)
    StarCraft is back for more. Will my academic career survive this time?
  • by Myria (562655) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:01AM (#19188795)
    Here [youtube.com]
  • by mgiuca (1040724) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:25AM (#19188875)
    IGN has posted screenshots here [ign.com].

    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.
  • I was amazed at this announcement but upon closer examination of the screenshots, it looks like it doesn't have anything new over its predecessor. Buildings and units have the same size relation as before, it doesn't seem like you can zoom in/out, very similar units.

    It would be disappointing it it didn't have some revolutionary features and a great story.
    • by graymocker (753063) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:38AM (#19189169)

      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.)

  • by evanbd (210358)
    Release date?
  • User Interface (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BloodyIron (939359)
    I imagine by now my post might not be read, but here goes.

    I have been a fan of Blizzard for years, still am really. I put faith in the quality of their product, but I am concerned with a concept they themselves essentially created.

    Custom User Interfaces. With the advent of World of Warcraft, I wonder why it had not been developed before. For those who are not quite following me yet, let me indulge you.

    World of Warcraft features an almost 100% customizable User Interface via the use of XML and LUA. The only
  • by mark-t (151149) <`markt' `at' `lynx.bc.ca'> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:41AM (#19188937) Journal
    Or at least, that's what my kids (all have played Starcraft) said when I mentioned this to them, quick to point out that the Starcraft:Ghost project was delayed so many times it eventually died.
  • ... but I just threw my fist in the air, almost dropped my laptop and grunted like a caveman -- all in an upscale hotel-lobby in Hong Kong. StarCraft 2! Fuck, YEAH! I'm almost 24 now and haven't played anything but a few hours of WoW since I got out of high-school, but this really gets me going in ways I'd rather not elaborate.
  • Starcraft has the capability of showing 1500 units on screen at once,with some lag(anyone who played evolves maps knows).I suspect it be another Warcraft III with starcraft units.
  • by GFree (853379) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:00AM (#19189009)
    I, for one, welcome our new Zerg overlords.

    *whisper: dude, we don't have any overlords*

    SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!
  • I look at those screenshots and they look exactly like a SC1 battle with better resolution. Seriously, with one or two exceptions you can pick out every unit and its SC1 equivalent in those screenshots. The terran bunkers, the mutalisks, the zerglings, etc.

    I know SC1 was an awesome game and they dont want to do anything to mess up the legacy, but come on, its like a decade later, lets do something besides new graphics. I've always been a huge fan of Blizzard, I hope there is more to the new starcraft tha
  • I was just looking at the screenshots. Did anyone else think they look like sprite-based graphics rather than polygon? If those are actually polygon based graphics, then they have done some amazing work. If they are sprite-based, then I say, "Great!" It'll be nice to not be looking at something other than the same 'ole polygon graphics.

    I hate it how when a new technology comes out that everyone abandons the old. 3D graphics are great, but they aren't perfect for everything. It's kind of like how I wou
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Nim82 (838705)
      The reason though why they have been dropped is largely because it actually took a lot more time creating sprites than 3D models.

      You needed to build a 3D model, animate it, render it out for every angle, then compile the sprite. A real pain in the arse.

      I too though, personally, would like to see a few more sprite based RTS games. Purely for the amount of units you could have on screen at once without worrying about lag, esp on lesser PC's.

      I recently discovered a game called SunAge, it's an old school sprite
  • by mstroeck (411799) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:05AM (#19189039) Homepage
    I'm entering "long, pseudo-philosophical rant"-mode here, so caveat lector:

    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.
    • by Virtual_Raider (52165) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @06:45AM (#19189719) Homepage
      Two words: Bull Shit. And then some more: Dual perspective. Make the large units' size scale-accurate and the ability to switch between Macro and Ground Unit scales. Remember the Ghost that never was? Add levels to be played at FPS level. Add Bridge level scale where instead of managing hordes of troops you manage the crew of one Cruise or other big ship to accomplish a particular objective (think Star Wars, "shoot in the exhaust, blow enemy base"). They could add the option to have generals or hero units and pre-program them at the beginning of the level/match with basic strategies so if you don't take any action they would start organizing whatever units you assign to them to follow one of those strategies. So no, you are wrong, there are tons of things that can be added to make it incredible while keeping what made the original cool.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mstroeck (411799)
        Blah, blah, *expletive*, blah, blah, *assigning absolute truth value to opinions*, blah...

        Try to read what other people write. Of course it's easily possible to do all those things. My point is that it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea, IN MY OPINION. There is a difference between a game and a simulation that you don't seem to grasp. I'm not terribly interested in simulations, but have a strong interest in well-balanced games of skill and/or strategy. Nobody is advocating giving chess players swords and h
  • Starcraft forever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N3wsByt3 (758224) <`Newsbyte' `at' `freenethelp.org'> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:34AM (#19189145) Homepage Journal
    While I see some complain that Starcraft2 is just like Starcraft, I rather think that's just one of it's strengths. I would *hate* to have seen a completely 'revised' starcraft where one could hardly see any link with the old game. Let's face it; it may be true that Blizzard is (much like EA) a rather commercial company (well, they all are, but you know what I mean) who mainly goes for established and proven concepts, and doesn't come up with something daring or original - one must acknowledge they hit the spot with Starcraft. It was one of the best games of the genre in its time. Ah, the wee hours I spend on it (including broodwars). I'm not saying it was perfect (there were some missions who were rather tedious and boring), but all in all it was a great game - and even until this day I play it now and then (I bought it again for 6 euro or so last year; a real bargain, since it STILL looks reasonable and remains as enjoyable as when it came out).

    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.
  • by Nim82 (838705) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @04:35AM (#19189147)
    I really appreciate the fact (judging by the visuals) that they have seemingly concentrated on making things aesthetically pleasing, rather than technologically demanding, as so many new games seem to.

    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)

    by chillax137 (612431) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:46AM (#19189479) Homepage
    i'm starting grad school next semester. i hope to god that sc2 is delayed long enough for me to get my phd.
  • by Robotech_Master (14247) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:26AM (#19190069) Homepage Journal
    Although I have nothing to do with the torrent myself, I should note for the benefit of those who are finding starcraft2.com to be sluggishly slashdotted, all the "good stuff" from the site is available via BitTorrent. [demonoid.com]

    Enjoy.
  • Starcraft 1.5? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crswanny (949449) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:45AM (#19190147)
    Soon as I saw the announcements I ran to starcraft2.com and read everything as much as I could about the game. You're pretty limited at what you can see, and the only race with a wee bit of info are the Protoss. As someone who got the original the day it came out (best April Fool's day, evar!) I'm been a rabid fan for years. But looking at all the preliminary info I just get this feeling that it's SC1.5 instead of 2. Yeah it made the leap to 3D graphics (whoopty-doo) but there's still only the 3 races, no new Hybrid that I and bunches of others have been expecting. I know this is still really early to make any calls on and looks like another fantastic, awesome Blizz game, just throwing my two cents in. PS. Please Blizz, keep this as a strategy game and don't try a "RPS" or whatever WCIII is.
  • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @12:10PM (#19191075) Homepage
    The Linux gaming market is not really viable yet, at least for large developers. I wish this were not true, but it is. Recent events like the Apple Intel migration have not really changed the situation. I'll address some good questions that came from a troll thread.

    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)

    by AlpineR (32307) <wagnerr@umich.edu> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:14PM (#19193341) Homepage
    The first thing I thought when I saw the screenshots of Starcraft II was: "The units look just like they did on the box for the original Starcraft."

    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
  • by Punto (100573) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `botnup'> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @09:07PM (#19194785) Homepage
    why would they need a physics system? People are complaining that you had to micromanage the heros on WC3, what can realistic physics add, other than more little useless details (oh no! the Goliath tripped over a rock on the ground, I better go help him!)

    I'm not a fanatic who thinks physics are just a gimmick to replace good gameplay (I loved hl2), but it should be interesting to see what they're doing with this. Otherwise it sounds like they're caving to "peer pressure" (all the cool game engines are doing it!)
  • Starcraft 2 Hype (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Danathar (267989) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @09:46PM (#19194979) Journal
    I liked Starcraft and will probably like Starcraft 2 like a lot of other people...but the hype surrounding it, dancing girls, thousands of people stuffed into a stadium to see it..seems more than a bit over the top and bizzare.

    It's a game, not the answer to forgoing a life.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...