What is the true purpose of StarCraft 2?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

So I been watching www.gametrailers.com for StarCraft 2 related videos and I just feel that StarCraft 2 isnt about ... StarCraft 2 the sequel to StarCraft but more of a promo for StarCraft the MMORPG

Why? here are some thoughts:

1. It looks outdated, everything about it fits in 2003-2004 not 2008, its been 10 years and the game looks cartonnish and totally out of scale (capital ships the size of tanks anyone?)

2. The briefing and debriefing areas and player dialogues in story mode like here http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23196.html , I have no doubt Blizzard spent more time on what looks to me an updated WoW engine than on the RTS part of the game, even though its possible they are the same like in World in Conflict.

3. Blizzard have an hidden project , most assume it is a new MMORPG

4. WoW - no secret how much money Blizzard made from it, I'm sure they are aware of how much money SCMMO will make

5. The most important one! there no doubt the Zerg are not a very playable MMO race untill this video came - http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31707.html - listen to what Kerrigan says about evolution of the zerg, in my eyes its about the evolution to a playable MMO race ;)

While SC mmo is something that I'd like to play - on condition it is nothing like WoW ( a game directed at not very bright kids , sorry wow players :p )

I'm afraid it will hurt SC2, something I been actually fanatically expecting to since 1998.

Hope for best , expect the worse... my motto in gaming and it never fails.

Good Night all its 04:52 and I gotta get some sleep!

First of all, I'd like to say that RTS games have never been about scale. If that was the case then infantry units would be too tiny to see. Who would want to play a game like that? Also, the graphics are clearly current gen material. I fail to understand how the graphics are "cartoonish". If Blizzard wanted StarCraft 2's art to be more "cartoonish", then it would quite obvious to anyone. Furthermore, it's odd to say that Blizzard spent more time on the non-RTS graphics (story mode/mission briefings) than the actual RTS graphics (units, lighting, maps, etc). It's a RTS game, not a "I'm so pretty and I want to be a MMO" game.

World of Warcraft is one of the most successful MMO games on the market but that doesn't mean Blizzard will make a StarCraft MMO. Perhaps they will work on one in the future but I don't see it happening now or anytime soon. They're simply too busy with the development of StarCraft 2. I've watched the Zerg trailer you linked and I think your interpretation of it as a "playable MMO race" is just wishful thinking.

As for the graphics, please take the time to examine the following screenshots:

NOTE: The graphical differences are better seen in higher resolutions.

The StarCraft 2 graphics engine is clearly superior to the StarCraft and Warcraft 3 graphics engines. If you've seen the new Zerg reveal trailer for StarCraft 2, you'd see that the first few scenes are done purely in-engine meaning that it isn't pre-rendered. The SC2 engine also supports DirectX 9.0 and will feature a Havoks physics engine.

Personally, it doesn't have to be the best in terms of graphics. I'll be happy as long as Blizzard delivers the same great RTS action they did with StarCraft.

"Hope for best , expect the worse... my motto in gaming and it never fails." -- I'm sorry but that's abit too pessimistic.

[EnzoFX]

Sorry, but if you think sc2 is just wc3 with sc skins, then something is clearly wrong with your vision!

It looks gorgeous and will outdo every rts out there just like sc did. I agree with Anaron, this speculation is completely unfounded and misguided......

[OblivionStalker]

I just saw the protoss and terran presentation videos. The new additions and features added to the game are just what the pro gamers needed. The players get more dynamic gaming with these new features.

Thinking about Blizzard letting down a game of their own is just insane.

[Golferjim]

First of all, I'd like to say that RTS games have never been about scale. If that was the case then infantry units would be too tiny to see. Who would want to play a game like that? Also, the graphics are clearly current gen material. I fail to understand how the graphics are "cartoonish". If Blizzard wanted StarCraft 2's art to be more "cartoonish", then it would quite obvious to anyone. Furthermore, it's odd to say that Blizzard spent more time on the non-RTS graphics (story mode/mission briefings) than the actual RTS graphics (units, lighting, maps, etc). It's a RTS game, not a "I'm so pretty and I want to be a MMO" game.

World of Warcraft is one of the most successful MMO games on the market but that doesn't mean Blizzard will make a StarCraft MMO. Perhaps they will work on one in the future but I don't see it happening now or anytime soon. They're simply too busy with the development of StarCraft 2. I've watched the Zerg trailer you linked and I think your interpretation of it as a "playable MMO race" is just wishful thinking.

As for the graphics, please take the time to examine the following screenshots:

NOTE: The graphical differences are better seen in higher resolutions.

The StarCraft 2 graphics engine is clearly superior to the StarCraft and Warcraft 3 graphics engines. If you've seen the new Zerg reveal trailer for StarCraft 2, you'd see that the first few scenes are done purely in-engine meaning that it isn't pre-rendered. The SC2 engine also supports DirectX 9.0 and will feature a Havoks physics engine.

Personally, it doesn't have to be the best in terms of graphics. I'll be happy as long as Blizzard delivers the same great RTS action they did with StarCraft.

"Hope for best , expect the worse... my motto in gaming and it never fails." -- I'm sorry but that's abit too pessimistic.

Wow Starcraft2 looks so good... I'am just sitting here fading away, waiting for Starcraft to come out!!! I want it now ><

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Sorry, but if you think sc2 is just wc3 with sc skins, then something is clearly wrong with your vision!

It looks gorgeous and will outdo every rts out there just like sc did. I agree with Anaron, this speculation is completely unfounded and misguided......

Wow Starcraft2 looks so good... I'am just sitting here fading away, waiting for Starcraft to come out!!! I want it now ><

Thank you. I'm a graphics junkie and I think StarCraft 2 looks like a beautiful for a RTS game. To say that the graphics are outdated (2003-2004ish) is blasphemy.

[mundox]

Sorry, but if you think sc2 is just wc3 with sc skins, then something is clearly wrong with your vision!

It's crearly the same engine with better shadows, textures, and stuff. So, it's wc3 with sc skins.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

It's crearly the same engine with better shadows, textures, and stuff. So, it's wc3 with sc skins.

It's possible that the graphics engine used in StarCraft 2 is loosely based off the one used in Warcraft 3 but to say that it's the same engine with better shadows/textures is downright wrong. Also, it isn't Warcraft 3 with StarCraft skins. In the StarCraft 2 FAQ, it says: "StarCraft II will run on a vibrant new 3D-graphics engine that will be capable of rendering beautiful landscapes as well as massive individual units and army sizes."

Furthermore, in the same FAQ, it says: "The game will be compatible with DirectX 10, and we're still considering whether there will be exclusive DirectX 10 graphic effects, but the graphics engine will also be very scalable to ensure that a wide range of different systems will be capable of running StarCraft II. The new engine is also capable of rendering very large units, as well as large numbers of units on screen together. Havok physics have been integrated into the engine for added realism as well."

It wouldn't be new if it was the same graphics engine now would it. No hard feelings, just remember to do some research before stating false facts. :yes:

[mundox]

Yeah I read that FAQ as soon as they released it, but it stills looks like WC3. Now, I never said SC2 was a bad game or that it looked bad... it just looks like wc3 with sc skins to me (and new units, and a whole bunch of new stuff).

Still I'll buy it as soon as I can (I do have the original SC... and played it like crazy back in the day) cause most of the stuff blizz makes it worth the money (minus wow).

[EnzoFX]

Your definition of "like" is a little... well, wrong

Just like a station wagon is like a ferrari.....

Those engine are light years away from each other.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

It's crearly the same engine with better shadows, textures, and stuff. So, it's wc3 with sc skins.

Yeah I read that FAQ as soon as they released it, but it stills looks like WC3. Now, I never said SC2 was a bad game or that it looked bad... it just looks like wc3 with sc skins to me (and new units, and a whole bunch of new stuff).

Still I'll buy it as soon as I can (I do have the original SC... and played it like crazy back in the day) cause most of the stuff blizz makes it worth the money (minus wow).

First you say "it's" which is a contraction of "it is". And now you say "like". Those are two different things. I understand what you're saying now. It would've been better if you said "like" to begin with. I can't change your opinion so I'll leave it at that. The only Blizzard game that I didn't enjoy playing was WoW so a WoS would really hurt my image of Blizzard as a game developer.

Your definition of "like" is a little... well, wrong

Just like a station wagon is like a ferrari.....

Those engine are light years away from each other.

True. It may look slightly similar, but in the end it's something quite different.

[Golferjim]

It's clearly the same engine with better shadows, textures, and stuff. So, it's wc3 with sc skins.

I agree with you there. Its the same graphics engine but with a lot better graphics, shadowing etc, If you think that it is just a skin / mod on the pre-existing Warcraft 3 you must not no a lot about the two games sorry to say ( unless your blind ).

[qdave]

I agree with you there. Its the same graphics engine but with a lot better graphics, shadowing etc, If you think that it is just a skin / mod on the pre-existing Warcraft 3 you must not no a lot about the two games sorry to say ( unless your blind ).

by your thinking one can also say that hl2 is improved hl1 engine.

[OblivionStalker]

Read the FAQ. The graphics are not the only thing changed. Havok Physics have been added. And support for DX10.

It may look like wc3 engine with better graphics (Like many other sequels for many other games), but in reality it is not the same.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I agree with you there. Its the same graphics engine but with a lot better graphics, shadowing etc, If you think that it is just a skin / mod on the pre-existing Warcraft 3 you must not no a lot about the two games sorry to say ( unless your blind ).

It isn't the same graphics engine. Blizzard has already stated that it is a new engine specifically designed for StarCraft 2 and only StarCraft 2 (for the moment).

by your thinking one can also say that hl2 is improved hl1 engine.

Exactly.

Read the FAQ. The graphics are not the only thing changed. Havok Physics have been added. And support for DX10.

It may look like wc3 engine with better graphics (Like many other sequels for many other games), but in reality it is not the same.

Correct. I wonder if they'll add any exclusive DirectX 10 effects. That would be nice.

[TruAmbitionz]

I loved Starcraft but....

Starcraft2 seems like the SAME game. The graphics are improved but compared to whats out today, it's nothing.

Age of Empires 3 came out in 2005 and looks more realistic then that.

The races and units are the same except each race has maybe 4-5 new units. Older units have added abilities.

...It's a freaking expansion pack!

[Guest]

I loved Starcraft but....

Starcraft2 seems like the SAME game. The graphics are improved but compared to whats out today, it's nothing.

Age of Empires 3 came out in 2005 and looks more realistic then that.

The races and units are the same except each race has maybe 4-5 new units. Older units have added abilities.

...It's a freaking expansion pack!

Expansion packs don't usually replace the graphics & physics engine (or add a physics engine in this case).

[TruAmbitionz]

Expansion packs don't usually replace the graphics & physics engine (or add a physics engine in this case).

I didn't mean literally but that's the way it seems.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I loved Starcraft but....

Starcraft2 seems like the SAME game. The graphics are improved but compared to whats out today, it's nothing.

Age of Empires 3 came out in 2005 and looks more realistic then that.

The races and units are the same except each race has maybe 4-5 new units. Older units have added abilities.

...It's a freaking expansion pack!

You're calling StarCraft 2 an expansion and comparing its graphics to Age of Empires 3. First of all, StarCraft 2 has very stylized graphics. If Blizzard wanted realistic graphics then they sure as hell would create an engine designed for that purpose. Second of all, the races are the same because the story is still continuing and yes there are new units but some of the older units have been removed. Units such as the Dragoon, Scout, Corsair, Goliath, Vulture, and Devourer have all been removed. Finally, the game is still in early development so some things could change. As far as I can tell it's a totally new game and it looks beautiful. No more are the days of playing StarCraft 640x480. Can you imagine how ugly that looks on a 22" LCD monitor @ 1680x1050?

[toadeater]

Looks like a shareware game for little kids. Strategy games have gotten so much more complex than this since Starcraft was originally released that this seems like a board game in comparison. That's not to say it won't sell. It will probably sell millions, but that is irrelevant to me, because it's not a game I want to play.

All I'm going to say is, stay tuned for Dawn of War 2.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Looks like a shareware game for little kids. Strategy games have gotten so much more complex than this since Starcraft was originally released that this seems like a board game in comparison. That's not to say it won't sell. It will probably sell millions, but that is irrelevant to me, because it's not a game I want to play.

All I'm going to say is, stay tuned for Dawn of War 2.

Amount of gamers that play StarCraft = infinity. Amount of players that play Dawn of War = negligible.

To say that this pioneering RTS game is a "shareware game for little kids" is odd. Honestly, StarCraft was a game about skill and strategy. StarCraft 2 seems to have an even better atmosphere and I think many gamers here and abroad think that StarCraft 2 will be as good as the original StarCraft, and a whole lot better. I've played many RTS games and almost none of them have anything over the other. Games like Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, and Command & Conquer are all good RTS games. Sure they're different but RTS games will be RTS games. I'd like to hear about how StarCraft 2 is less complex than todays' RTS games. That is what you implied , right?

[OblivionStalker]

Looks like a shareware game for little kids. Strategy games have gotten so much more complex than this since Starcraft was originally released that this seems like a board game in comparison. That's not to say it won't sell. It will probably sell millions, but that is irrelevant to me, because it's not a game I want to play.

I doubt that a game that has been in all of the WCG tournaments and many other world-known tournaments you can call shareware for kids. It is SC that revolutionized the RTS genre, it is SC that started the pro-gaming.

And there is no chance that DoW will pass SC in any way. Maybe it isn't your taste, but in all aspects, SC is a better game than DoW.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I doubt that a game that has been in all of the WCG tournaments and many other world-known tournaments you can call shareware for kids. It is SC that revolutionized the RTS genre, it is SC that started the pro-gaming.

And there is no chance that DoW will pass SC in any way. Maybe it isn't your taste, but in all aspects, SC is a better game than DoW.

Exactly. StarCraft is probably the most played RTS game, even to this date. Heck it's even a sport in Korea. Professional StarCraft players in Korea are like celebrities in the US.

[Miuku.]

this seems like a board game in comparison.

Many board games have hundreds of pages of rules - not to mention different books for each class.

As for saying "RTS are so complex" - not to crash your little sand castle - the vast majority of todays RTS are still the same "let's gather X mineral then charge with rush - luulululululul".

[EnzoFX]

Haha, by that logic, the most complex games should be doing the best!

Games like Supreme commander or Sins of A Solar Empire..... They should be selling better than CnC3, etc....

Come on now, most gamers aren't after huge complexity in games. Starcraft is DIFFERENT from those games, not inferior...

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

How did that Dark Templar drop to the back of your base feel, toadeater? :p