Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games) Real Time Strategy (Games) Games

StarCraft II Single-Player Details Revealed 206

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-lan-wah-wah-hey-look dept.
As Blizzcon approaches, a number of gaming sites were invited out to California to get an early look at the single-player campaign for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. Kotaku has a detailed write-up (spoiler-free version), and 1Up summarizes one of the missions: "... you're on a planet with an alternating day/night cycle (every five minutes, it switches): during daylight, you're safe. You can build forces and go out and destroy structures. At night, the infected Terrans will relentlessly stream towards your base — necessitating a strong defense against the 'zombie horde.'" An interview with some of the developers is available, in which lead designer Dustin Browder says Blizzard will continue their trend of having downloadable maps and other improvements throughout the game's life. BlizzPlanet posted a mission guide for the part of the game they got to see, and new video footage has been released that shows off the single-player mode.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

StarCraft II Single-Player Details Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • by space_jake (687452) on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:07PM (#29095259)
    I think they can create a bad game, they are smart enough not to release it.
  • by caladine (1290184) on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:07PM (#29095269)
    Now, if only they'd add LAN play back.
  • by Hatta (162192) * on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:10PM (#29095295) Journal

    So how are the dedicated fans of Starcraft going to take any changes in the gameplay? Starcraft was perfectly balanced, the fact that people are still having competitions after so many years shows that much. What can Blizzard do to Starcraft to make it new and worthwhile, without damaging the perfection of Starcraft?

  • by StreetStealth (980200) on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:11PM (#29095315) Journal

    If just one mission is tower defense, I think that leaves a good degree of potential for the rest of them.

    I wouldn't worry much about mission variety here -- if the originality Blizzard has been cranking out for of World of Warcraft quests in the expansions is any indicator, they'll have their hands full experimenting with mission structures.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:17PM (#29095403)

    Blizzard never was a revolutionary company. Warcraft was just dune/c&c with a warhammer-like theme. Starcraft was "just" Warcraft in space, with non-identical sides this time (THE major difference, I would say). Diablo is just a 3rd person real-time dungeon hack. World of Warcraft was not the first mmorpg. What all these games have in common is this: they're well made. To increases sales, they also try not to murder your poor PC.

  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:22PM (#29095475) Homepage Journal

    Ahh... Starcraft Ghost.

  • by BassMan449 (1356143) on Monday August 17, 2009 @01:33PM (#29095625)
    You stated your self what revolutionary things Blizzard has done. The big one being non-identical sides. Think of the major games before Starcraft. I honestly can't think of a single one that had teams that were more than different models and maybe a few variations on special abilities like Warcraft had. The idea of having 3 completely distinct and yet balanced races was extremely revolutionary. What Starcraft did was show that you could have races that were absolutely nothing alike and yet the battles would still be balanced and fun.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17, 2009 @02:06PM (#29096103)

    Glad to know that the only opinion that matters is yours. I'll be sure to consult you next time I need to know if a game is good or not.

    Personally I couldn't care less about the multiplayer. My idea of a good time doesn't involve teenage boys calling me a faggot Mexican Jew Lizard, which is pretty much all that multiplayer games are.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17, 2009 @02:18PM (#29096259)
    Do a barrel roll!
  • by BassMan449 (1356143) on Monday August 17, 2009 @02:20PM (#29096285)
    They had differences among units sure, but on the whole the races were very similar. With Starcraft playing Zerg requires a completely different style than playing Protoss. As Zerg I can throw Zerglings at you and if they die I don't really care. They are cheap and easy to produce. With Protoss your economy can feel every unit lost. As far as I know no other game had tried something so radical at the time.
  • by Colonel Sponsz (768423) on Monday August 17, 2009 @02:58PM (#29096795)

    The game has amazing re-playability (multi-player). You can only play single player campaigns for so long until it gets boring. Trust me when I say that the majority of the Starcraft gaming community have NOT been playing single player campaign for 10 years.

    Sure. But how many copies will a pure single-player gamer (who will only play through the game once and then shelve it) buy? One. How many copies will a hardcore multi-player gamer (who will play it obsessively for years and years until he finally croaks in an internet café [slashdot.org]) buy? One. Once you've bought your copy, it doesn't matter how much or for how long you play it. The money's already changed hands.
    Good multi-player is a selling point. But don't delude yourself for a minute that the fanatic cliché is who the game is developed for - it's developed to lure in as many customers as possible, and there are a hell of a lot more casual than hard-core gamers.

    Like the Anonymous Coward, I don't really care about Starcraft II's multiplayer (and much for the same reasons) - but if its single-player mode is as good as Starcraft I's, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

  • The thing is, Blizzard is revolutionary because they typically do things right. There are very few other games that I can remember (even now) that are as well designed as Starcraft or Diablo. They just work... you can get lost in playing the game, you stop thinking about the engine in the game, where the pathing weaknesses and such are. You just play. THAT is the revolutionary work that Blizzard does.
  • by Goldberg's Pants (139800) on Monday August 17, 2009 @06:17PM (#29098915) Journal

    It's such a ridiculous argument...

    Everyone knows Protoss is best...

    Seriously though, the game is fantastically well balanced. Not so much when it first came out but Blizz did an awesome job patching it.

    Starcraft is a classic. SC2 won't be. The Blizzard who developed the original SC is a VASTLY different company than the one who developed SC2.

    Incidentally, I notice no mention of the "There will be 3 different releases, one for each race" nonsense. Have they dropped that? Or are they hoping people might forget that money gouging nonsense?

  • by melikamp (631205) on Monday August 17, 2009 @07:24PM (#29099481) Homepage Journal

    I hate and distrust non-free software more than most, but I actually am OK with this type of non-free for big-budget computer games. Basically, I must be able to run them in the userland, privilege wise, and I want my privacy preserved (no submitting hardware/other software specs without my consent). Beyond that, they can do whatever chit-chat with the home-base they want. They can require uninterrupted Internet connection. (I do, so why cannot they? Being on the Internet is quite a priority for me, and I am not alone here.) A title can submit my usage statistics for itself. I am OK with all that producer-serving crap because its just a freaking game. It's a pure luxury and an expensive work of art, and I am thankful for having it at all. As far as copy protection goes, this is the least annoying one for me as a user. This is by far the best (for everyone) way to pay for big-budget games. The only thing better is paying up front for a free game.

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...