StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info 107
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 thread is worthless without videos (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tree.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:open ended (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dune2 had that sorted rather well years ago - nothing new there.
Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (Score:3, Insightful)
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 part of that was that then people expected campaigns that long and Blizzard would have been crucified if they'd only made 20-24 missions in total but I think that has changed. The success of multiplayer is the most important reason. Multiplayer and skirmish now are considered part of the gametime and they really weren't back then. The other would be that the average gamer has gotten older and we simply have less time. We want tight storytelling and missions and not all that filler that was normal back then.
Two RTSes that really nailed good mission design imho were Homeworld (great scripting, story and in-game as well as fmv cinematics) and Joint Task Force (it's imho the best game with expanding maps. I.e. you start on a small map, complete an objective and then the map expands and you get the next logical objective with a short in-game cinematic to introduce it. Supreme Commander did it too but much worse -- oh and a warning, if you're interested try the demo, ignore the reviews. The game plays more like Commandoes than Starcraft and IGN&Co apparently didn't notice. The reviews were really bad).
I want 12-15h, a campaign that doesn't feel like it's going too long (unlike this post, sry =). And after I'm done with the campaign I can play skirmish, LAN and online to get my money's worth (unless they charge money for online gaming like it's been rumored, as that would be a major cash cow in Korea)
Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Dreadfully Mediocre (Score:5, Insightful)
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. You mean it's not like that any more? Nobody cares about Half-Life any more?
Teams is better too (Score:4, Insightful)
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.