Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 107 +-   StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info on Saturday August 04 2007, @04:22PM

Posted by Zonk on Saturday August 04 2007, @04:22PM
from the i'm-about-to-drop-the-hammer dept.
rts
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."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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.

StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This thread is worthless without videos (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Whatsisname (891214) on Saturday August 04 2007, @04:40PM (#20116021) Homepage
    This thread is worthless without some videos. Give me videos!

  • I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tree.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jfclavette (961511) on Saturday August 04 2007, @04:42PM (#20116035)
    ... for the campaign, but that seems like it'll be a bitch to balance properly. Let's hope they get it right and it doesn't lead to a bunch of skirmish-like missions only.

    Of course, I'm probably the only person on planet earth that liked the single-player campaign and couldn't stand the multi-player (most likely because I sucked so much at it.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nutshell42 (557890)

      Let's hope they get it right and it doesn't lead to a bunch of skirmish-like missions only.

      Definitely, but kotaku's preview sounds like there's a lot of game-engine cinematics between missions which makes it unlikely that they're not also heavily customizing the missions.

      What I hope for is fewer missions. It might sound crazy but I think the 30 missions in the original SC were too many, at least the way they played. It felt like there were 6-7 real missions in the scripting, storytelling and mission types and then there were 3-4 skirmish missions built in to increase the playtime.

      Now I think p

      • unless they charge money for online gaming...

        Ugh don't even suggest that. I sc isn't as server intensive as wow is. They don't have to deal with persistent inventories and they don't have massive sprawling environments or require constant expensive content updates. If they do that I won't buy. And that is despite the fact that I'm following it very closely right now. I pay enough bills per month as it is.

        As for the rest of your note. I'm looking forward to online. Big time. However I will be playing

        • Ugh don't even suggest that. I sc isn't as server intensive as wow is. They don't have to deal with persistent inventories and they don't have massive sprawling environments or require constant expensive content updates. If they do that I won't buy. And that is despite the fact that I'm following it very closely right now. I pay enough bills per month as it is.

          It's a rumor that's been brought up a number of times and it makes sense because subscriptions and micro-payments are big in Korea and that's the main market for Starcraft. I wouldn't like it either and I certainly wouldn't pay for it, it would just kill multiplayer for me.

          As for the rest of your note. I'm looking forward to online. Big time. However I will be playing through the single player and the longer it is the happier I will be. I don't care if some missions don't advance the story. I just want to play at least five well thought out, hard missions with my entire tech tree.

          I don't think I'd play through all of that if it was part of the main story. Why can't we agree that there should be a short to medium length (i.e. 12-15h) campaign and a bunch of extra scenarios (if Blizzard is providing even minimal m

          • Well, from what I've been reading about blizzcon, it looks like they are giving us a happy medium. You will select missions to get extra money to advance your cause and be better prepared for the next mission. That means you can skip most of the optional ones and I can hit every last one, or even jump to harder ones earlier to keep it interesting. There might even be some randomness for replay value for me, although they haven't really clarified it satisfactorily.

            My problem with mods is that they usually
    • I liked the single-player campaign but I can't stand the multiplayer (I swear 99 out of 100 melee games use some unlimited money map)..

      I just hope Blizzard doesn't drop the ball when it comes to balance the heroes. I played Dawn of War:Dark Crusade and I'll be honest, I simply had my Commanders (read: Hero) stomp through most of the levels after I managed to get certain gear for them (the Tau commander is godly once you get the jetpack and rocket launcher).

      • The interviews implied that Starcraft 2 is going to be an army game, not a hero game. It suggested that, if plot characters are present during the campaign, it will be the exception rather than the rule, so they'll probably be more like the named characters from Warcraft2 and the first Starcraft - regular units with slight buffs and special unit portraits, rather than all-destroying behemoths.
        • Except for the fact that heroes in the original Starcraft were pretty badass when you weren't talking about victory fleets or armies numbering in the hundreds. The Battlecruiser heroes could tear away at enemy bases by flying over unwalkable terrain and using Yamato gun, Zeratul was the ultimate scout/ambusher (at 100 damage, he had one of the highest base damage in the game), (Zerg) Kerrigan was damned near overpowered as the only non-protoss unit that could use psionic storm (perfect for those zerg versus
  • From the looks of the screenshots, the game is gonna have some Wing-Commander-style between mission story telling. Ah, Wing Commander 2 was a pretty sweet game back then.
    • I almost had to fight back a tear as I read that. Yes, Wing Commander 2 was one of my favorite games of all time, and I loved the story and characters (ignoring how they later ruined Hobbes in WCIII). It would be amazing if Blizzard were to allow us to get so attached to the characters of the Starcraft universe through this kind of story-enhancing control.

  • Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nim82 (838705) on Saturday August 04 2007, @05:58PM (#20116477)
    Whats the big fuss over mission choice?

    Dune2 had that sorted rather well years ago - nothing new there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by skam240 (789197)
      Despite being the first modern base building RTS I don't think most people remember Dune II.

      However, I think the fuss is warented as it is exciting to see that Blizzard is updating their gameplay with new features, even if the "new" features are ones that have existed since the genre began. Furthermore, it looks like they are taking what was in Dune II forward a bit by allowing the player's performance in one mission to more greatly effect what their experience will be like in the next.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DaleGlass (1068434)
        Not a new concept either.

        Homeworld: You take the ships you got one level to the next. Could suck really badly if you didn't do one mission well, as you'd start the next and more difficult one in a disfavourable position. On the other hand, perfectly realistic given the setting.

        Fallen Haven. Turns based strategy game where you could choose which territory to attack, produce and organize defence on territories that were already won, defend, etc.

  • Goodbye daylight (Score:5, Funny)

    by imgod2u (812837) on Saturday August 04 2007, @06:03PM (#20116509) Homepage
    Well daylight, we had a good run. It's not you, it's me.
      • If that's true, bug wup. The "StarCraft II" channel on Hamachi will fill up with people playing virtual LAN games.

        However, you don't know it's true. Blizzard has like three or four different teams going at the same time. For all we know, the next gen MMO could be Diablo III. :-P
      • Oh that would suck, the good part about WC3 and so on and the reason I actually BOUGHT the title is that it's worth buying because it doesn't cost a fortune.

        I really doubt sc2 would use subscription thought, it's not like it's a huge title with lots of updates, is it?

  • The Lost Vikings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tfcking (898871) on Saturday August 04 2007, @08:14PM (#20117341)
    If you look at the new Viking units info page down the bottom you will see blizzard labeled the picture "The Lost Vikings". Blizzard made a game called the Lost Vikings in 1992. Not sure how many people remember that game still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Vikings [wikipedia.org] ....That was a fun game :)
    • Great beer drinking game, I wish they would make games along those lines. Two player cooperative puzzle/action. It was a great idea that never attracted more than a cult following.
    • For those Blizzards fans smart enough to stay away from WoW, I'll let you know that they also appear in the Uldaman dungeon as dwarves.

      Baelog [wowwiki.com], Olaf [wowwiki.com], and Eric the Swift [wowwiki.com] are all in the game. If you are Alliance you can talk to them and if you are Horde you can kill them and loot interesting things like Olaf's shield that gives you the ability to slow your fall.

  • I'm salivating just thinking about this game, but there's one thing about SC and SC:BW that I hope they fix: variable rotational speeds - a Marine should be able to turn around to shoot at something behind him much, much faster than a mechanized unit could. It always bothered me to see these gorgeously animated characters whose realism (okay, not realism. They're in space, after all. 'Fluidity of Movement,' then) was disrupted by a tank that could turn on a dime and start pounding you. It'd an odd thing fo

  • I heard that they are removing reavers from the game. I liked these mechanical snails.
    I hope they leave these for map editor.

    • Re:open ended (Score:5, Insightful)

      by realmolo (574068) on Saturday August 04 2007, @05:07PM (#20116175)
      That's because the fans of Starcraft, and RTS games in general, really just want to know how to "win".

      Is there any RTS game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? I mean, everyone knows what strategies/units to use and when after the game has been out for a month or so. At that point, if you are a "hardcore" player, you aren't really PLAYING the game so much as following the predetermined steps necessary to win. And in multiplayer, well, we all know that in multiplayer RTS games, if you aren't following one of a couple of strategies, and building the right units in the right order, you will lose.

      All of which is why I could never get into RTS games.
      • Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? Well, maybe checkers? Oh, wait... [slashdot.org] Ok, back to PC/video games. In an FPS game, you learn the maps to get to the weapons/objective as quickly as possible. If you don't follow that path, you will be badly outgunned and that == fail. In racing game there's only one correct racing line for each track. In a flight sim there's a whole bunch of checklists you'll have to follow to get anywhere. Shit, even in Pacman there are 5 patterns which you memorize t
        • >Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"?

          Anything with randomness. Anything where different players know different things.

          So, most card games, which do not necessarily have winning moves. In the computer realm, multiplayer FPS cannot be "figured out" because of differing knowledge. If I move behind you where I can see you and you can't see me, my knowledge is greater, and I will demonstrate that with a shotgun blast to the back of the head. If I plant mines, and you don't see them
          • And how is online rts not "random" enough? Often I do the "expected" units until I notice what the others have and switch, but sometimes I make something very unexpected just for fun and how doesn't that add to randomness?

            Though I always play team games and never solo which increases the amount of weird things you can do and still survive. Going for a unit which is very unexpected/"bad" in a solo game isn't all that great =P

      • Re:open ended (Score:5, Informative)

        by skam240 (789197) on Saturday August 04 2007, @06:53PM (#20116851)
        Most RTS games (especially Blizzard ones) are hardly that simplistic. Talking specifically about StarCraft, yes the first 5 minutes with any particular race tends to be pretty much the same. From there, however, you see a rapid expansion of game play possibilities that require players to be able to think on the fly. Sure, most good players have a few standard tricks up their sleeves for after the rush but which one is implemented depends on a variety of factors and often times require small changes depending on the players current situation in game. Of course most of the custom maps used on battle.net nowadays take away from this somewhat by removing all terrain and providing player starting spots with near infinite resources but that is more to do with player's purposely removing features of gameplay that Blizzard put in.

        Basically, the rush phase is there to weed out any players who haven't mastered the game's fundamentals and becomes near instinctual for skilled players. What follows after is the real meat of the game.

        • Teams is better too (Score:4, Insightful)

          by phorm (591458) on Saturday August 04 2007, @09:00PM (#20117573) Homepage Journal
          I remember that some of the best strategies came into play when playing between teams. If one player was, for example, massing carriers, one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague. That one will happily suck down the life of enemy units, which to add to it your terran ally can sneak up a science-vessel, dump an EMP, and basically drop that annoying carrier-rush-force down to nearly nothing for life.

          End-result is that the rush fails nicely.

          Yes, there was always a lot of build-build-build-rush-rush in the RTS genre, which tends to have a lot to do with the mentality of the players involved. Anyone playing on the "much money" maps was pretty much interested in that form of strategy, whereas under normal maps a good strategy could often undermine rushers quite well. There was, of course, also a good factor of luck or recon involved as to whether one should build defences against early rushing VS focussing on getting their base/units levelled.

          • one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague. That one will happily suck down the life of enemy units, which to add to it your terran ally can sneak up a science-vessel, dump an EMP, and basically drop that annoying carrier-rush-force down to nearly nothing for life

            Yeah, the best counter I found for that was to stasis your carrier fleet so they don't lose life from the plague and can recharge their shields. That of cou

      • Re:open ended (Score:4, Informative)

        by p0tat03 (985078) on Saturday August 04 2007, @07:06PM (#20116943)

        Try Total Annihilation. The AI in that game is ridiculously smart, and learns between sessions. I remember when I first started playing I went heavy on bombers and fast airborne strafing runs across the enemy base. A couple of games later I tried to steamroll the CPU again, but this time all my aircraft were met with a hail of grisly anti-air death. I was shocked, and amazed.

        In the end it really forces the player to constantly be trying new playing styles, new strategies, and the resourcing became even more important. TA worked on a "income vs. expenses" model, instead of having resource "stockpiles" like traditional RTSes. This allowed you to maintain a totally automated production line, whose unit AI you can set before it even rolls out of the factory. It allowed truly large-scale thinking, where you can hold a line and fight a massive war instead of micro'ing your units and engaging in limited skirmishes.



        • Try Total Annihilation. The AI in that game is ridiculously smart, and learns between sessions. I remember when I first started playing I went heavy on bombers and fast airborne strafing runs across the enemy base. A couple of games later I tried to steamroll the CPU again, but this time all my aircraft were met with a hail of grisly anti-air death. I was shocked, and amazed.

          In the end it really forces the player to constantly be trying new playing styles, new strategies, and the resourcing became even more
      • That's because the fans of Starcraft, and RTS games in general, really just want to know how to "win".

        Is there any RTS game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? I mean, everyone knows what strategies/units to use and when after the game has been out for a month or so. At that point, if you are a "hardcore" player, you aren't really PLAYING the game so much as following the predetermined steps necessary to win. And in multiplayer, well, we all know that in multiplayer RTS games, if you aren't following
      • Sure doing the right units helps, but a skilled player can use "wrong" units vs someone less skilled and still win, also attacking and expanding at the right moment and so on makes a difference aswell. And of course in the case of wc3 having the right unit type hit the enemys right unit type and/or decide if it's worth focusing heroes or not will make a difference aswell.

        Also when people don't scout you can pull of very unexpected things such as only massing siege tanks or something.

        Also in say WC3 I read s
    • You wanna piss off me boy

      • *buzzer* Nope. I'm not sure who was truly first, but I know that C&C predated SC in terms of balancing different units for each side (as opposed to having both sides "clone" each others' units). Granted, C&C multiplayer left a lot to be desired, especially the matchmaking service, but SC certainly wasn't the first.

        RTS games have come a long way since SC, but the thing I remember most fondly about it was its ability to tell a story while *in* a game, where previous games in the genre were limited t

      • Blizzard is one of those few game developers that can claim that players like them because they ARE Blizzard. Valve and iD are the only other ones I can think of off hand that can make a claim like that.

        I think you're forgetting a couple. Nintendo, Konami, Harmonix, Bungie (starting from back in their Mac days), Black Isle/Obsidian, Square-Enix, Nippon Ichi, Sega, Bioware, Capcom, Maxis, Firaxis, Rockstar, Relic, Rare (for all that they haven't done much to earn it recently I've still seen games being h

      • Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday August 04 2007, @07:25PM (#20117049) Homepage Journal

        gaming on the pc is close to death
        Yes, but we do it anyway.

        But seriously. You haven't noticed hordes of people playing online games? Hell, I fire up Eve nearly every day for a little bit and there are usually quite a few people there. If I multiply the number of people online by the 14.95 per month, the product is not a business that's on its last legs. And Eve is just tiny compared to WoW or the others.

        Are people playing those games on the PSP now? I wouldn't know since I don't own one.

        a huge community (skilled) happy to churn out maps and mods, together with the fastest computer platform
        You mean it's not like that any more? Nobody cares about Half-Life any more?

    • I love how this is sounding, so kinda RTS with a little RPG added.

      Nah, I still think RTS + RGP = Suckatude.

      I remember the silly "ghost" or "squad" missions from Starcraft and the increased emphasis on core units in WC3 missions (such as "march your Terran hero and his beasts through the shooting gallery" one). On all those missions, I kept hoping for a "skip the lame RPG-ish levels" option (other than the cheat codes, of course).

      Thank god Blizzard still let you skip right past the cheesy cut-scenes.

      Long s

Search
The distinction between true and false appears to become increasingly blurred by... the pollution of the language. -- Arne Tiselius

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.