RPGWW

My worst fears have come true.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=163207

God Dammit.

I've never heard of them before, and reporting on rumours is a generally bad practice. I will refuse to get hyped!

I'm calling shenanigans on that site. Pics or it didn't happen/isn't true. And not the shoddy fake ones that've been floating about recently.

SHENANIGANS!

In the event of the truthiness of this article...I cry. I have to admit that it is very suspicious though. It makes me wonder, if it won't be another Starcraft game, what else could it be...

Why would you cry? Dude, this is the second-best outcome; the only thing that could have been better would be a new SC RTS.

There had better be RP servers where I can be a High Templar evangelist, trying to convert all the Terrans to Khalism.

And I'll be a hydralisk, chasing you constantly and comically devouring you. Much to the delight of the humans. :o

Detail a functional model for a SC MMO and I'll be interested. Only thing worse than trying to do that is make one for Warhammer 40k.

South Korea? Come on.

internets gaming news = modern yellow journalism

i could totally play that, but im thinking this is fake.

Doomsday has not come. Instead, we have a glorious ressurection.

http://www.starcraft2.com/

That is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

I almost started crying during the trailer.

I want to play this RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

Saaaaaaaaw it coming. *yawns* Moving on...how about that Final Fantasy Dissidia or Folklore or Lost Odyssey?

This forum is not nearly pumped enough about Starcraft II. I'm ashamed.

I chalk that up to the fact that "ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE~" isn't any less lame in GLORIOUS HIGH DEFINITION than it was ten years ago.

Snarkiness aside, PC gaming is growing increasingly niche as systems become too expensive to upkeep and consoles gain prominence, so an announcement like this isn't as striking as it would've been, say, five years ago when most of us still had computers that could run the thing decently well.

Actually, decent computers and parts are becoming cheaper and cheaper.

That and you are talking to Phil, who hateses almost everythings.

On that note: *takes a drink*

Silly Bes, there's no hatred in my post. Just pure and simple indifference. I don't hate it, I'm just not hyped about the game and not going to buy it. That shot better have been water. >:P

I'm also going to go with the 'Eh, who cares' bit with Starcraft 2. RTS, meh.

Everyone knows the best RTS is Dune: Battle for Arrakis.

Everyone know's you're all ruining a perfectly good thread about Starcraft 2 with unrelated stuff. D:

Edit: Though Dune is fun stuff.

I. need. This. Game.

...and a new computer.

*starts saving*

Who needs food and rent, anyway?

I have to say that those reaper (or was it reaver?) dudes are pretty cool. Why don't I have a jetpack that lets me jump up or down a terrain level?

Because nobody spent any vespene gas when they queued your build order.

I'm patient. I don't care much for pre-release video game hype. When the game comes out, I'll see what the gameplay is like and make my own decision, assuming that I get a computer that I can play it sometime in the future for nearly free (improbable).

It looks pretty, though. Personally, as far as hopes and dreams, I'm thinking that "more of the same" is precisely what I'm looking for here; Starcraft's gameplay is 98% perfect, so all additions are going to be subject to careful scrutiny by players. Blizzard is pretty good at game balance, given a few patches to work things out, but that's not going to be the issue if they take the game in a completely different direction from the original. Warcraft III eventually got balanced, but I still didn't like it much by comparison because of some of the new game elements. If they make heroes a focal point of Starcraft II I'll be displeased.

Well, there was no mention of heroes in the (pants-wettingly awesome) gameplay demo that went up yesterday, so we can hope.

I'm just waiting for the SC2 version of DOTA. That will rock.

Even so, no Jim Raynor would be a mistake.

There's a huge difference between "hero" as applied to Warcraft II and Starcraft and applied to Warcraft III.

The protoss mothership seems like a paralell to WCIII style "hero" units, and I'm not sure what I think about that.

The Mothership looks to be more in line with the experimental super-units of Supreme Commander than hero units. If you're not familiar with the former, think of them as The Big Thing(s) you can pull out late game which can turn the tide of the battle. Heroes (in the WC3 sense) are there from the off (more or less) and are pretty integral to the game.

I posted this in a Starcraft-related Facebook group because I was bored, and I'll repeat it here:

WC3-style heroes are a pronouncedly fantasy-oriented concept; the reason why they work in the setting of Warcraft (I said setting, not gameplay; I haven't played Warcraft III extensively, so I can't say for sure what good or bad effect they have on the gameplay) is that in a fantasy army, a single warrior can stand out. Experience is meaningful and even battle-deciding. The reason why WC3 has heroes is the same reason why there's a World of Warcraft MMORPG: A single exemplary warrior can make a difference. Can you imagine a Starcraft MMORPG that would work as well as World of Warcraft does?

I don't think that's true with Starcraft, except MAYBE for the Protoss. I don't think it makes sense to have a single Marine start to become better and better; his abilities are technologically-based anyway. The concept of a single Zerg becoming notable is totally nonsensical, because first you have to argue what constitutes a "single Zerg" in the Swarm (does experience get awarded to the Hydralisk, the Overlord, the Hive Cluster, the Cerebrate, or the Overmind?). I DO agree with the assessment that a soldier with a lot of kills could be more quicker or more accurate with his weapons; I've seen that dynamic work out pretty well in a few games.

Obviously, the argument I gave applies to Warcraft III-style heroes only. The Mothership sounds totally awesome (and I think it fits some of the core game balances better if the Protoss are the only ones who get the giant single ego-stroke spaceship, really) as long as it doesn't wind up like the Titans in the expansion for Age of Mythology, where you get a single disgusting unit that requires the application of an entire army to destroy and the game becomes a race to see who gets one first; I expect integrating the Mothership will be one of the focuses of the game balance team. And, of course, unique heroes (Raynor, Zeratul, Kerrigan, Duke [Wait, is Duke dead? I lost track of all the Terrans except Jimmy], Duran, etc.) are a must if we're to explore further into the most engaging story in the history of electronic gaming.

As long as the Mothership doesn't gain experience, it doesn't bother me any more than a Battlecruiser or a Carrier. As far as their Black Hole thing goes, I'm thinking that could probably be handled like a Reaver's Scarabs, but taking a lot longer to produce and limited in storage capacity to probably just one per ship.

Also, I've heard that they're trying to make it so that PvP battles in Starcraft II last about 20 minutes instead of several hours. I'm guessing that these super units might have something to do with that. They'll probably give the rest of the units a pretty important role too, though. Hopefully they'll also give units lower costs and production times as well so that battles can still be big and intense even if they're short.

Actually, in the demo they tell us that the Black Hole just takes a ridiculous quantity of energy. They said that if it wasn't for the fact that it was a demo, the Mothership would have been out of energy after it used the Planet Cracker and the Time Bomb. If the energy replenishment rate is still about the same as it was in the first game, I doubt you'll get much of a chance to use more than one Black Hole before your Mothership is gone.

Seethe wrote:Also, I've heard that they're trying to make it so that PvP battles in Starcraft II last about 20 minutes instead of several hours.

What're you talking about? The average Starcraft match is about 15 minutes in length.

Yeah, that's an odd thing to say. Brian routinely beats me in under 10 minutes.

And I'm not even talking about games that are drastically one-sided. I'm talking about World CyberGames professional matches. That's the average game length between two skilled players; naturally, being an average, some number of games are longer and others are shorter.

That so? I haven't actually played any real PvP matches, but a custom game against the computer tends to take me a few hours if I actually win. Maybe I just defend too heavily.

How big of an empire do people usually build before they take out the enemy? For me, things tend to last until every mineral is harvested and all the Vespene Geysers are depleted. Of course, I'm admittedly really lazy about attacking and usually go for small-scale hits that cause a "wasteage of enemy resources" without costing me any casualties.

Within the first 5 minutes, if you have units, and you're not using them to scout for your enemy, you're wasting them. If you have already found your enemy, and you have troops, you're probably wasting your time by not attacking if you think you have any chance at damaging the supply line. Depending on the map, a potentially game-deciding confrontation has usually happened by 7-8 minutes. If the initial attack is repelled, both sides jockey for position, potentially counter-attack or expand, and resolve the game by 20 minutes. If it isn't repelled, the game is already over.

Mining out the entire map is extremely rare, though mining out your main is typical if the game runs for more than 20-30 minutes. Most really long-lasting games don't take longer than 30-40 minutes, depending on the play-styles of those involved.

On Google Video, I saw the Korean Starcraft championships. The winner won mainly because he did an SCV rush at the beginning.