Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Games Entertainment

New Starcraft: Ghost Trailers 185

Bobartig writes "Blizzard Entertainment has put up gameplay trailers for their upcoming console title, Starcraft: Ghost. It looks hot. It's available both in both Quicktime and DivX, with plenty of mirrors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Starcraft: Ghost Trailers

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Harbinjer ( 260165 )
    Blizzard has never made an FPS as far as I know. THis will be a good test for them.
    • Actually, I for one am rather disappointed with the direction Blizzard is taking. They made great RTS games (Warcraft I/II, StarCraft), and great RPGs (Diablo)... and then they decided that if the two genres were so popular, they ought to mix them.

      Warcraft III was like Shakespeare writing a comedy-tragedy. Romeo and the Merry Wives of Windsor, anyone? From what I gather, Ghost is more of the same.

      • I find it funny you call Diablo an RPG, but let's not troll.

        Blizzard hasn't invented anything with its game. There was Dune2 before Warcraft. Their business lies in improving existing genres. See Starcraft. Nothing really new in that game, but it was so great because of the fantastic gameplay.

        I don't see SC Ghost as a revolutionnary game either, but who knows what the gameplay will look like, maybe it'll just be the next reference in the genre. 'cause, imho, Warcraft 3 isn't.

        I'm *glad* Blizzard is approaching new kind of games, and not yet another Warcraft/Diablo.

        We all know how rare it is that radically new games (Populous, Homeworld, Myst, etc) are released. This is just business, they won't take risks if people keep buying Doom 19. The best we can expect is real improvement in existing genres (B&W, RCT), or mixed genres (I see Warcraft 3 as a failed experiment).

        If they want to try some new orientations in game design, fine, let them do, 'cause it can't really be worse than a stupid clone.
  • It LOOKS good... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blitzoid ( 618964 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:36AM (#4535623) Homepage
    Yes, it looks good... but how does it PLAY? I'm waiting till the release. Blizzard pretty much outsourced most of the work to Nihilistic, so it might not have the same 'feel' as blizzard's other games. But I guess it would be hard to capture the feel of RTS games in an FPS anyway, heh.
    • by jcsehak ( 559709 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:20AM (#4535740) Homepage
      It probably plays something like Bungie's "Oni," which was really fun. Except it looks even cooler. One thing I loved about Oni (and warcraft III, too) is that the models were somewhat blocky, but at the same time really fluid and beautiful. They moved like a real person (or a real cartoon), and were nicely proportioned. It looks like Starcraft:Ghost will be no different. This is where Everquest fails for me. Their models are like robots from the '50s.

      And kudos to Blizzard for releasing it on all consoles at once. Now if only they'd make a PC version. Not likely, esp. considering the fact that my definition of PC specifies to "Mac."
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Their models are like robots from the '50s.

        They had robots in the 50's?

        You're an idiot, aren't you? It's okay, you can admit it. There are lots of idiots on Slashdot. You'll feel right at home.
      • Re:It LOOKS good... (Score:2, Informative)

        by rufo ( 126104 )
        Considering that every single game that Blizzard has released for PC has also come to the Mac, if by some chance it does come to a computer, Mac gamers won't be left out in the cold. Indeed, Blizzard's last two releases have been simultaneous for the Mac and PC, and even shipped in the same box using the same CD. Blizzard has their own in-house porting team, and in interviews often raves about how simultaneous cross-platform developement finds bugs on both platforms a lot faster then does working on one platform. (Not claiming this is true, just regurgitating what's been said.)
    • yes her bondage catsuit she's got on looks spanky alright but the question is, how does she change her tampon?
      • The suit is pure defense.
        I don't know about you, but I couldn't shoot a girl(troll ethics and all).
        If shes fully covered in armor, its kinda hard to tell she's a girl, so she's easier to kill.
        Now, if you can see her happy fun places at all times, there is no way you could kill her.

        The huge hole also helps air out her stanky playground, which i assume gets pretty bad in a suit like that.
  • Another point... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blitzoid ( 618964 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:39AM (#4535637) Homepage
    Something I notice on their site is that they'll specifically mention Linux on the trailer download page... perhaps they see Linux (Or *nix/BSD users in general) users as a potential market? One can only hope.
    • I'd wager big money linux is not in the release picture. I'd bet its only 'cause the divx player is available on linux.
    • It wouldn't surprise me, Blizzard's been very good about simultaneously releasing the Windows & Mac versions of their products for years.
    • Re:Another point... (Score:3, Informative)

      by DevilJeff ( 243585 )
      Actually, this is a console only game. They mention Linux on the download page, because divx can be played in Windows or Linux (Yes, I know it can be played on Mac, too...but that's what quicktime is for)
    • the options are:
      pc/linux (divx format)
      mac (quicktime)

      i bet they must be getting lots of email from angry windows users...
      -damn you blizzard, first you go consoles, now linux and mac only?!?! wtf!?!?
    • That's cause of Divx. On another point....WHY ARE THE FRIGGIN CLIPS ZIPPED! Zipping a Divx file gets you practically nothing. IN fact it probably adds to the filesize.

      That and the game companies buy into the Gamespy Fileplanet thingy that I REFUSE to sign up for just to look at game video clips! Did they not make enough money from Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft to buy a decent webserver of their own??
      • That's cause of Divx. On another point....WHY ARE THE FRIGGIN CLIPS ZIPPED! Zipping a Divx file gets you practically nothing. IN fact it probably adds to the filesize.

        Yes I'm offtopic, but I'd blame that on internet explorer. Sometimes the best (easiest) solution for preventing it from opening the file in an external app (Movieplayer in this case) without asking the user is to zip the file. I guess they don't want one million people sending them angry mails because the "streaming video" is so slow.

        • Um, most users can also figure out how to download the whole thing too. (right click link, save target as) At least the ones interested in Starcraft would. Also, why aren't they on a streaming server? Why in the world would you want to keep this marketing pap?
          • Um, most users can also figure out how to download the whole thing too.

            I assure you, most is not enough in most cases. People left klick, some movie player pops up, and they wonder why the movie is so slow on their 56k. And starcraft is not a good enough criterium to filter out enough "lusers".

            As for not being on a streaming server, well, this won't help for 56k too, but you are right, I wouldn't want to keep this marketing pap on my HD too. Maybe they think that people will pass it around etc., and that streaming is more expensive, I don't know.

            What I wanted to just point out is that zipping is not always used for compression only, nearly always thanks to braindead internet explorer.

            See for yourself [microsoft.com], but beware, it will make your brain hurt.

            • by swv3752 ( 187722 )
              One other point, zips are more likely to be allowed through numerous firewalls than other file types. Maybe better to say proxy servers, but you know what I mean.
    • I mean, a Linux user cant play any recent games on his computer, so he is more likely to own a console for gaming ... ;)
  • Nihilistic (Score:3, Informative)

    by kmac06 ( 608921 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:40AM (#4535641)
    Its a third person shooter, not first, and although Nihilistic is doing most of the work, Blizzard is still watching it closely.

    Also, Nihilistic was started by a group a programmers that left Blizzard after working on StarCraft.
    • Re:Nihilistic (Score:3, Informative)

      by Longinus ( 601448 )
      Its a third person shooter, not first, and although Nihilistic is doing most of the work, Blizzard is still watching it closely.

      Also, Nihilistic was started by a group a programmers that left Blizzard after working on StarCraft.

      Actually, Nihilistic is a bunch of ex-Lucasarts guys who left after doing Jedi Knight I.
    • This comment keeps bugging me - I've played many good games that move smoothly between first and third person perspective. Sure, from a visual perspective they're different, but in gameplay they're pretty much the same. Behind view and first person are really just views, not gametypes. You don't actually start making changes to the gameplay until you go to 3/4 or top view or something.
  • I really don't like consoles, and the gameplay looks awfully stiff, as I expect from those platforms. /me waits for Deus Ex 2 and Doom III.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:42AM (#4535645)
    Do I STILL have to wait 30 seconds to use the nuke?!
  • Direct download link (Score:5, Informative)

    by nstrom ( 152310 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:46AM (#4535654)
    Direct download link for DivX, worked for me:

    http://www.nforcefiles.net/afilesa2aa/movie/Ghost_ Gameplay2002.avi.zip [nforcefiles.net]
  • Looks good. Starcraft as an FPS. Different, but interesting. Too bad it's a console game. The only game console I ever had was the Coleco Vision back in the 80's. Anyone heard any news on Starcraft 2?
    • As of June there was not much :(

      Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:32:33 -0700

      From: Sales
      Subject: RE: starcraft question.

      Blizzard has not announced any plans for further development of the StarCraft series. All of our game designers and development teams are currently working on other projects.

      • That quote is misleading. Blizzard have not started producing a Starcraft 2 yet. Whenever they point this out they also hasten to add that they will defiently make another starcraft game some time in the future. And no, Ghost is not that future game.
    • Re:Starcraft as FPS? (Score:5, Informative)

      by m4ik ( 576357 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @05:41AM (#4536078) Journal
      Blizzard currently denies any SC2 plans but if you finish Warcraft 3 on hard, you'll see some Space Marines, some Space Orc-Flamethrowers and alot Zerg Hydralisks, all running in the WC3 engine. They are shooting and killing each other, so I assume that it won't take long to do Starcraft2, as the engine is ready and even some models are already done .
      • Whoa! Hold on there for a sec! Won't take long?

        What on earth makes you think they will use the WC3 engine for SC2, and what makes you think that "a running engine and a couple of finished models" means that it won't take long to complete a game?

        It takes time to create the technology as well as the contents, you know. Not to mention alpha and beta testing, and tweaking, tweaking and yet more tweaking. This is Blizzard, after all.

        Not to underestimate the creativity and amount of work which goes into a model, but creating a single model doesn't take that long! And besides, they've already got the SC models built. They used them for the cutscenes in SC, remember (and maybe even as basis for the 2D characters in the game itself).

        The ending in WC3 is just an easter egg of sorts, and says absolutely nothing about SC2. And it sounds like you don't even know what you are writing, because the exact story you are replying to now is a 3D game based in the SC universe, and it actually has 3D models of Hydras, Zealots, etc.. Why on earth do you start talking about SC2?

        And the WC3 engine for SC2? I hope that is not the case.

  • by baywulf ( 214371 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:49AM (#4535660)
    If I used the AAlib library (http://aa-project.sourceforge.net/aalib/), can I get ghost is a shell?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:00AM (#4535691)
    Strange that Blizzard would release a trailer showing a fair amount of gameplay not much more than a month since the game itself was announced. Remember how long Warcraft 3 was in development?
  • by nebenfun ( 530284 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:02AM (#4535694)
    Damn! I lost my schedule again.
    Could someone please remind me if we hate blizzard this week?
  • by realgone ( 147744 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:06AM (#4535702)
    Blizzard Entertainment has put up gameplay trailers for their upcoming console title...
    Yup -- just so long as by "upcoming" you mean well over a year from now. [blizzard.com] More likely two years, given Blizzard's track record on meeting projected shipping dates...
    • i would argue that deadlines are easier to meet for console projects as (insert standardized hardware/os argument here). although as they are slated to release for all the nextgen consoles, that argument may be blown out of the water.

      my main issue is that i don't forsee many LAN parties featuring SC:G. while i'll piece together computers and build a LAN in my home office to play multiplayer PC games, i don't see myself going out and buying four (insert console here) and four TVs (or VGA adapters).


      although if they were going to port it to PC, the Xbox code might be a good place to start. heh.

      was i the only one that was deeply disappointed by WC3?

    • by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:40AM (#4535776)
      "More likely two years, given Blizzard's track record on meeting projected shipping dates..."

      Blizzard can get away with it. They release their games when it's ready to be released.

      Personally, I'd prefer companies take a cue from Blizzard and consider the quality of their games instead of trying to meet trade-shows. With all the crap out there, there's room for companies that actually care.
  • Um... (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:20AM (#4535741) Homepage
    OK, I don't want to troll here... or something. But... the movie... isn't that voice the same that used to do the "descriptions" for bad 70's porno films from Sweden?
  • by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spamNO@SPAMpbp.net> on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:32AM (#4535764)
    ..we can still click frantically on the terran units and make them say funny things. :P
  • by fenix down ( 206580 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @02:51AM (#4535794)
    I never knew that the SOUL of the WARRIOR had so much to do with wearing form-fitting wetsuits and posing suggestively...
    Will there be dramatic netative-color fade-outs that make her ass crack glow in the game too? If not, wanna run out a patch for that? Thanks.
    Fwoosh! Blinded by da booty! Take that, Zerg overlord!

    Goodnight everybody!
  • Will there still be that effect where every second or third shot misses for no apparant reason, yet every other hits precisely on-target? I guess this one has permanent auto-aim, or *gasp* continuity is broken!
  • It'll be located on the control panel. Click to become infested, click again to make all Terrans die.
  • a bit disappointed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @03:48AM (#4535875) Journal
    apart from the cool cloaking effect and the fish-eye view, I see little or no revolutionary stuff. From what a trailer can tell, I'd put it in the oni/halo category, which happens to be a rather crowded one.

    It's been a while (since the doom3 trailers actually) since I've had a 'wow... this shit is awesome...' reaction, and SC-G doesn't trigger that for me.

    Then again, I might have played just a bit too much fps games to get wowed anymore. All I see in those trailers is cannon fodder :-)
    • That Hyrdalisk that was right on top of him was pretty cool though :) Think of all the cool Starcraft shit that could be in the game... Lurkers and Battlecruisers and Goliaths and Archons.. thousand of zerglings.. :) could be a fun game.

      But of course, who really knows. As with everything, have to wait and see...
    • By "oni/halo" category, do you mean "Bungie game"?
      • no, just that it's yet-another-third-person-shooter. Bungie indeed makes little else these days. As does 90% of the console game makers apparently.
        Maybe it's just me : i used to play Q3A a lot (as well as Q1 and Q2) but the last few months I got bored with the repetitiveness ('finally' says my wife, until she saw I got hooked on warcraft)
        chris should run a poll on the fps and 3ps games :
        - lov'em
        - never loved'm
        - bored with it
        - loved, then bored, now in love again

        • The reason everyone's making 3rd person shooter games is the same one that drove everyone to make platform games back in the NES/SNES/Genesis days. They follow a simple formula, have some level cliches to keep you from having to work too hard on ideas, and with the vast number of others out there it's easy just to copy ideas directly if it gets too hard.

          Everything now-a-days has to be 3d (Why this is, I don't know. I'd really like to play another side-scrolling sprite-based Mario Brothers game), and while games like Crash Bandicoot, Sonic Adventures, and Mario64 did well in certain markets, they're not the kinds of titles that sell anymore. They manifestly lack flashy graphics and things exploding, which are what sells games, apparently. As such, the console market had to move on to something else. FPSes have a pretty tight upper limit as to what you can innovate, and most releases focus on the newer, flashier, more-memory-eating graphics than any actual difference in gameplay. Console game authors can't rely on hardware upgrades to support their latest endeavour, so FPS games are pretty much right out. Third-person shooters (or just 3rd person adventure games in general, to include games like Onimusha that fit the mold but lack the guns) give you a little more freedom to innovate ("In this one you play a ninja frog with 76 secret tongue attacks to unlock!") without really moving Too far away from the "slightly-maze-like levels with plenty of moving things to make scream, bleed, and stop moving" formula.

          So until someone comes up with a new display medium, we'll probably be stuck with an ever increasing selection of 3rd person adventure games and progressively more movie-like RPGs to play on consoles.
  • cup (Score:5, Funny)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @03:52AM (#4535882) Journal
    is this just me, or are her boobs to small for an average digital female warrior ?

    big fat ass tho... might spurr ideas...
  • Imagine the FPS of this running a beow...

    -1: stop using that joke...
  • hmmm... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    looks like a solid snake affair but with jubblies.
  • It's surely looks like ONI [godgames.com] to me. ONI was missing a lot of details and the 3d world was kind of block shaped, but i hope it will be the same 'genre'. Things i loved about were the anime style 3d, and the fact that it was running very nicely on my old laptop (a 333Mhz).

    Well, StarCraft ghost looks far more beautiful, i hope they'll be a dozen of combo to do. Btw, a funny thing is that ONI means ghost or demon in Japanese [godgames.com]... So, is this StarCraft - ONI? ;-)

    Check the web for some shots, scripts and maps at ONI Central [bungie.org] and ONI Res [bungie.org]. Btw, you can download [fileplanet.com] the demo [godgames.com] it's not that big, and i guess i'll playing it in some minutes again.

    freddo [netfirms.com]
  • All three consoles? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @07:48AM (#4536250)
    I've never heard of a game being released on *all three* consoles before. Is this new? And, do they really have the leverage to tell the console makers that they don't get an exclusive lock on the game? This seems pretty strange to me.

    All that being said, I'm looking forward to GTA4 on Oct 29 much more :)
    • Tony Hawk 4 is an example of a game released for all 3 platforms at the same time (simultaneously nonetheless)
    • ummm.... yes, many, many games are released on all platforms... tony hawk 3, spiderman, lord of the rings off the top of my head, and these are only the names that other people will know. :)
    • For some reason I can't access blizzard.com properly (did we manage to slashdot it or is it the screwy gateway on my host being weird again). On the trailer it mentioned all three consoles, but not PC. I assume this is because there's no logo for PC (unless we're going windows symbol and tux for linux, etc), or would they be so cruel as to release it for console before PC?

      There's too much marketing going out to console games right now. I need something other than NWN to test my CPU and video card to the edge.

      (and while they're at it, can they get the Squaresoft guys to bring out FFX for PC too?)
  • DivX not working? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hoggoth ( 414195 )
    When I play this trailer I just get the 'key frames' with no motion in between...
    I downloaded and installed the latest DivX codec.
    Anyone else get this?
  • great...wonderful...IF YOU HAVE A CONSOLE!!! i dont know about any of the rest of you, but i dont have the odd $200-250 to shell out for an xbox, ps2 or gamecube. guess im gonna have to buy all three in order to play any of the new games that are coming out. course, it would prolly all look better with my p4 2.53 and a GF4, but thats besides the point.
    • For a crowd that regularly spends $1000-$2000 a year on hardware, including $300+ for a video card specificly designed for GAMES, I doubt a used gamecube ($129) is really that much of a hardship.

      If you can't afford that, then give up the dream of playing DoomIII which will DEFINATELY require an expensive upgrade, no matter what you have now.
    • great...wonderful...IF YOU HAVE A COMPUTER!!! i dont know about any of the rest of you, but i dont have the odd $500-1500 to shell out for a new pc.
  • by 1WingedAngel ( 575467 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @10:02AM (#4536476) Homepage
    Twelve Arbiters
    Eleven Science Vessels
    Ten Ultralisks
    Nine Battlecruisers
    Eight Archons Burning
    Seven Zerglings Swarming
    Six Zealots Fighting
    Five Newborn Queens
    Fout Hydralisks
    Three Marines
    Two Terran Waiths
    And a brand New SCV!
  • ... I wasn't impressed.

  • I can't believe this is for a console! I own a PS2, and yes, the game seems made for a console, but I would have thought that this SHOULD have been made for the PC. I will buy it, but I was just hoping to flex my PC's muscles and play this game at my desk with a real keyboard and mouse instead of an awkward console controller.

    It's StarCraft after all...made for and inspired by the PC... what else will the video game publishers take away from the PC gamers who MADE the next generation gaming market?
  • Remember how they used the DMCA as a club against the bnet.d project?

    I loved their earlier games, I have Warcraft, Diablo, Diablo 2, and Starcraft (all legit, the only reason why I still have a PC at home with windows) but I will not in good conscience buy another.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982