Oooh, NDA lifted on SC2 single-player demo. (videos, pictures, tons of info)

[konfeta]

*Note: SClegacy did a complete compilation of all news related to the NDA lift, with notes pointing out which articles/interviews are worth reading the most. I highly recommend looking at this link and checking out any info you might have missed, it even has some discussions on multiplayer aspects and battle.net 2.0:

http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/481-single-player-coverage-wrap-up-a-compilation

In fact, after reading them here are the 3 best interviews that do their best to convey design goals of SC2:
http://www.starcraft-source.com/article/news/view/?id=261
http://www.starcraft-source.com/article/news/view/?id=260
http://www.gametab.com/news/3083868/


Tons of new stuff, gameplay vid of the single player, interviews, etc. Let's try to keep discussion to the topic (SC2 single) at hand without degenerating into stuff like "OMG NO LAN NOT BUYING" rants or "HOW DARE BLIZZARD ANNOUNCE TWO EXPANSION PACKS BEFORE RELEASING THE FIRST GAME." These sorts of things just lead to non-stop cycle of fanboys/anti-fanboys bashing each other, killing the thread.


Starting to watch all this stuff now, reactions as I finish watching. Should people not want to read spoilers for the missions, put those in spoiler tags.

- The Dustin Bowder keynote explains much of the cooler campaign mechanics. If you don't feel like reading through everything at once, it's kind of an overview to get you started.


- In general, looks like Blizzard is trying to go for a mix of methods to RTS singleplayer. Some is what you could call Valve style, where every mission is custom crafted with triggers as opposed to basically being a slightly different skirmish. There is some RPG progression in the campaign as well in form of choices/upgrades choosin'.

-The initial plans for the campaigns for Zerg/Protoss seem to be oriented around different mechanics. If Terran is about army upgrades and unit choices, Zerg campaign will look more RPG where you will be boosting boosting Kerrigan's personal power. Protoss seems to be diplomacy oriented, where you try to become friendly with variety of Protoss tribes to gain access to their stuff. I cribbed this info off the Starcraft wiki though.

-While most of the info will look like it will overlap between different fansite reports, the biggest difference lies the interviews they nabbed. If you don't like the idea of reading the same "OMFG ITS AWESOME" followed by basically identical descriptions of the campaign missions, skip straight to watching interviews. They contain some relatively juicy bits, lorewise.

-Mission specific achievements. Like, not just for completion, but for dealing certain tasks within missions under certain conditions. Some of them are even exclusive to certain difficulties. Pseudo-OCD people like me are screwed. Complete under x time, not let any civilians die.

-Doing missions unlocks techs for buildings and units (including oldies like Medics or Firebats) or upgrades for them. Apparently huge-ass Flamethrowers need to be upgraded with viruses before they make things burn over time? :puppy:

-There will be SC: Ghost teasing (of the nya nya variety the way I see it).

-Oooh, Mercenary contracts to buy for in-mission reinforcements. They essentially allow use of cool, elite units without sticking major characters like Jim Raynor on every mission. They reason that it's not exactly "heroic to hide back in the base from a horde of carriers or ultralisks," so heroes will be available only on hero specific maps. For everything else, mercenary. Who are elite, yet expendable. Lulz:


They do not grow between missions if they survive. Browder explain that "if we put in a reward where they got a benefit from a grow then in many cases I think you feel obligated to make sure that they survive. StarCraft is a blood and guts kind of game. Units live and die all the time and as a hard-bitten Commander of a StarCraft universe we want you to be comfortable with that." They can get brutally killed and "it's totally cool just to move on."

Translation: Bite it, J. Ebbert? Sorry, couldn't resist. I am still somewhat bitter about DoW 2's campaign wasted potential. Still enjoyed it, though... bring on the DLC/x-packs Relic with proper effort put into the campaigns!

-The Cantina will be a source for lore tidbits as the game progresses. Cool stuff.

-Flamethrower turrets! Weeeeee. I miss those from Red Alert. Also, Moar Missiles in form of Missile Racks for turrets! The armory looks fun overall.

-Alien research side-quests to give general upgrades to your forces, like infantry damage or armor boost for vehicles. Scavenger hunt ahoy.

-Scary black guy. With a knife. And a somewhat stereotypical Rastafarian vibe. Very classy, Blizzard. http://www.blizzplanet.com/content/starcraft2/single-player-hands-on/7-20-09/gabriel-tosh.jpg

-OMFG. Lava Crab critters. <3

-This seems to be an NDA from end of July. Since Blizzcon is pretty much in less than a week, I imagine some of this info is outdated already.

-A small list of some unique campaign units: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100025

[Dawnofdarken]

Woo. thanks for the update! still looking through everything and i'll get sum up my conclusion.

[scoiatollo]

Some nice informations I have to say (too bad I can't watch the videos here at work...). I really like the mission designs that were presented so far, if the rest is as interesting I could actually see myself playing the SP (which didn't happen in a looooong time). But yeah since I read an interview with the lead designer in a German magazine, I'd say at least 60% of what you've read there is already outdated...^^

On an other note, Blizzard seems to have some sort of online registration planned to play this game, and while you don't need to be connected to play SP, it's strongly advised because you'd miss out a bunch of cool features.

[Weavern]

Will be interested in seeing how much ocd is really required to complete SC2. Perhaps there will be a sandbox unlock if there is a nonlinear completion three that closes off as you advance. At the very least there should be in mission saves :D

For anyone who rages over seperate campaigns, dow2 did just that to you. So no soap boxes please. However I would be intested in knowing how much playtime there actually is in the campaign. Now if there's the number of missions in WC3 or more, for just terrans and that same number released for zerg and protoss later, that would be fantastic. But i'm leary of a 'playtime' number.

[konfeta]

Well, they are aiming for 30-35 missions. I am wondering if it's just the Terran variety or does that number include the Zeratul mini-campaign?

Not quite WC3 level, but I don't mind. All the quirky stuff, and replayability of the campaign is worth getting 5-10 less missions IMO. I just hope the missions will top The Frozen Throne missions. That was one of the more fun RTS campaigns I played. The "Final Thoughts" section of the SClegacy singleplayer review raises my hopes (and the interview on incgamers.com):

At 6pm, the press event had come to completion, and the representatives left, with the near impossible task of keeping all of this information secret for an entire month. Why was it so hard to keep silent? Simply put, StarCraft II is shaping up to become an even greater RTS than its predecessor. The multiplayer has gained new and improved aspects of racial balance between the Terran, Zerg and Protoss; and the single-player is establishing itself as a unique campaign-style with nearly unlimited replayability. Due to the dynamic missions, no longer will the single-player campaign consist of hiding behind your defenses until massing an unstoppable force of the most powerful units available to you. With the new campaign style, each time you play through the campaign can be a different experience, selecting harder difficulty levels, taking different mission choices and facing each challenge with a different line-up of units and different upgrades, allowing new strategies and gameplay far beyond the capabilities of StarCraft and its expansion, Brood War.

Browder said "each one of these mission could be a mechanic for a whole game but we make it just for one mission."

The bloded part will hopefully keep people who are bored with skirmishy nature of many RTS campagins happy. Also, higher difficulty levels give enemies more units to fight, my universally favorite way to scale difficulty in an RTS campaign. Weeeeee.

[scoiatollo]

What konfeta said, I just read a German review of the SP and they said the first 3 missions took ~30min each and that Blizzard is aiming for a similar length for the other missions as well. It's a linear campaign though, so no alternative endings, and if you can trust Blizzard even no Cliffhanger at the end.

[drChengele]

Generally, these are nice news, I was especially becoming bored with the way RTS campaigns were reduced to a series of skirmishes. Although, I don't personally give a rat's ass about achievements and other things not related to gameplay and/or lore. Give me more gameplay videos any day. I am very much interested in how they will handle the presentation of the Protoss campaign, if they put in the same amount of effort they did with Terran campaign it will be well worth buying an expansion, in my opinion.

I don't have anything against Blizzard's business model, if they release quality games I'll buy'em. As simple as that.

The biggest problem I have with Starcraft 2 is lack of pure LAN play. Maybe the times have moved on and most people have broadband... but Warcraft 2 and Starcraft created LAN parties. It's just so wrong.

[DeafMute]

I remember hearing LAN play is still intact. But youve to have a real copy of the game to use it.

What I heard on this forum atleast.

Anyway. as for this update on SC2 info. highly impressive.
Assumign the price is okay. I will consider buying it.

[Kratos]

Starcraft II looks AWESOME as ever. That is how you do single player missions *looks at relic*.

[scoiatollo]

No DeafMute, there will be no LAN mode. That's been out for quite some time now and I really doubt that they'll change that since they clearly aim to make the battlenet steam2.0 for Blizzard games (and maybe, just maybe for other Activision RTS as well).

[Kratos]

Anyone remember the good old "spawn" installation for Starcraft, where anyone could play in LAN with you?

Anyhow, you can call Blizzard like whatever you want, but when it all comes down to it it is a company. And the very purpose of a company is to gain profit, so they want everyone to buy this game.

BTW I'd take BattleNET 2.0 over GFWL any time of the day.

[LoCo]

The LAN issue isn't too much of a problem, even on Dial-up. You simply need to contact the server to verify your game is legal. You can still play "LAN" games, you just have to contact the server first.

That means that you won't be forced to have six people trying to play online through your dial-up, it may just take 10 minutes for everyone to get verified when they start the game up.

A problem, yes. But not that big of a problem.

[Octopus Rex]

@konfeta - re: the J. Ebbert remark - they are totally different situations. While I imagine that approach will work great for SC2, the idea of "They can get brutally killed and 'it's totally cool just to move on'" was exactly what tons of people complained about with DOW1, as elite SMs repeatedly dying in droves was just ridiculous. So they fixed that in DOW2.

Overall: yeah, many of things listed sound pretty cool and I'm looking forward to it, but a lot of it was kind of what I was expecting, so I'm not going to go into cardiac arrest due to ecstasy just yet. On first look, nothing sounds 'game changing', it just sounds like a very solid, very detailed, comprehensive version of the kind of things we have already with some neat tweaks here and there (if they deliver, which they probably will). Exactly what you'd expect from Blizzard.

[DougyM]

The interview meant pretty much nothing to me.

I played the original game, and the expansion... im not interested in finding out if random character X from random fan fic/novel/comic is going to make an appearance.

Gameplay looks good though, im just hoping it doesnt turn into a "spot the completely meaningless character that we added in to make the fans happy" wheres Waldo type campaign.

[Surrealitycheck]

Looks good. With that many missions it should be pleasingly varied.

[Verrin]

I was never a terribly big fan the single-player elements of blizzard games; it was the online content. I'm still looking forward to the features they plan to incorporate with regards to the multiplayer, battle.net, and the scenario/map editor.

[Enosh]

Translation: Bite it, J. Ebbert? Sorry, couldn't resist.

beacose both games use the exact same lore when it comes to units right?

[Shuma]

*sigh* 'ere we go.

Aniway. The Campaign looks awesome, thank god it's a real RTS campaign, not bashing any game in particular, in general, all this new RTS games's campaigns have been simple Skirmishes, few games have tried to make a real campaign and i'm personally very glad that Blizzard is making an effort to make a unique campaign, if the Expansions deliver the same quality with the campaigns(and Multy) then SC2 will dominate the RTS market for another long 10 years, and since they've already said somewhere that there's going to be a SC3 and they might(they made a big emphasis on the "might" and before some says "Bullshit!": http://www.sc2blog.com/2008/08/30/interracial-karunology-and-the-fourth-starcraft-2-race/) add a 4th race then i can see them taking several game of the year awards.

All in all, i'm very happy about all this.

[Busby]

SC2 will take game of the year awards simply because of the "But its Blizzard lol" effect.

I don't see anything really interesting. The gameplay looks the same as Starcraft 1. But with a metric shit ton of gimmicks glued on.

Look at this:


you'll be rewarded with new tech—access to train Marines at a Barracks

Um. This is a new and exciting feature?

[Enosh]

oh forgot to say:
SP sounds fun, voice acting is beyond misserable, the "we are getting torn appart" is probably the worst delivery of this line I have heard in a game or movie so far. Don't know, maybe I am just spoiled by relics voice acting, but this sounds very bad so far (atleast to me)


then SC2 will dominate the RTS market for another long 10 years

ofcourse it will, there is no other thing gamers dispise more than change in any way shape or form, it's probably the subculture that hates changes the most, some elitist music listeners come in second from my expiriance

[Croaxleigh]

Well, in my opinion it all looks better than some of the first footage that they released... and while I'm sure that a lot of folks will find it entertaining, I still have no interest in buying it.

[sporty]

Let's try to keep discussion to the topic (SC2 single) at hand without degenerating[...]
[...]
Bite it, J. Ebbert?
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Still, if you want to avoid the inevitable clash of fanboys for as long as possible, then better not provoke it.

[A176]

Um. This is a new and exciting feature?

Um. No, he's describing what's going on in the SP mission. Try reading the article before trolling.

[Busby]

-Doing missions unlocks techs for buildings and units (including oldies like Medics or Firebats) or upgrades for them. Apparently huge-ass Flamethrowers need to be upgraded with viruses before they make things burn over time?


Emphasis mine. Not my fault the Blizzboys think everything is super amazing.

And it doesn't help that the article went on more about the interactive cinematic then the actual missions, which from the description don't sound like 30min affairs.

[Shuma]

Did you read the Articles at all? Or just the Op? Seriously. And yeah, to most SC fanboys that line is awesome.

[scoiatollo]

Busby I don't know what your problem is, where do you read that he finds that "super amazing"? For me it's a simple statement about what is included in the game. And if you've ever played any Blizzard game you'd know that their cinematics are what actually carry the game cause unlike other games, they tell an interesting story while being at the same time incredible beautiful.

I get it you don't like Blizzard, you don't like SC, but you know what, there are people around that like it and since there's no RTS around right now that would please my needs I rather want to play it sooner than later =(

[A176]

Busby, again, if you actually read the articles, you'll see the articulation of the points; ie an upgrade available for terran buildings so they don't burn down like they do in SC1. This is called "gameplay", not "omfg best rts evar".

[Octopus Rex]

their cinematics are what actually carry the gameAre you sure you meant that scoi? :)

[acos_N]

SC2 will take game of the year awards simply because of the "But its Blizzard lol" effect.

I don't see anything really interesting. The gameplay looks the same as Starcraft 1. But with a metric shit ton of gimmicks glued on.

Look at this:



Um. This is a new and exciting feature?

/initiating counter troll function

Oh, but busby, isn't (insert sequel here- Half Life 2 maybe?) just (insert predecessor here) with a shit ton of gimmicks glued on?


SC2 is getting props for doing a lot of things differently- the single player campaign is nothing like what we've seen before more so because of what we get to do in between missions. And as for a general lack of description for actual game play? well duh. For one, its liable to change- even units shown on the main website have had core functions changed and for another, we've played SC1. Where is SC2 going to be different at a core level? If you're really that interested you CAN do the research rather than looking at the latest wave of press releases.

[scoiatollo]

Indeed I do. The gameplay was never that special imo. It was great no doubt but I like the CoH concept more (or at least what it used to be before it got torn apart and turned into an abomination of itself). The only thing good I see about the SC2 gameplay is that they don't try to innovate for the sake of innovation like some other developer I don't wanna name ;) That at least ensures that mechanics that are known to work are in the game mixed with some new stuff that's been put in and beta tested for a probably much longer period than I'll play the game. Blizzard allways understood how to sell a "simple" story, may it be with ingame cutscenes or a CGI movie.

[Shuma]

I agree with mostly everything you said, i disagree on the "The cinematics are what actually carry the game" since SC is way more famous for it's competitive MP than it's Cinematics, the one that's popular for the Cinematics is WC3.

[Octopus Rex]

@scoi: So if the cinematics are what's carrying the game, surely by that rationale Blizzard should make movies instead, as that's what they're actually good at?

[Busby]

For the record this is the 10th Starcraft II thread. And that's just by a title search in GD.


The gameplay was never that special imo.

Which is what I think. But the Blizzboys go nuts every time a Blizzard employee passes wind. Blizzard is almost like some one cloned a certain Mr. Smart and then gave them the ability to make to make decent (yes, decent) RTS games, but then it probably isn't there own fault there fans worship them as gods.

[JAL-18]

You are far more annoying than the Blizzard fanboys.

[scoiatollo]

Yes and no, I'd love to see a SC/WC movie done by Blizzard, but I'm not sure that it would be the same, they allways managed to make a bond between the characters and you (may it be WC, SC or Diablo). I never was into the SC competitive multiplayer, I liked the map mods and enjoyed a serious game once in a while (mainly because I was more fascinated by FPS at that time^^), while it's true that SC is known for it's MP and I sure like watching a match cause what those guys pull off is just amazing, that's not what SC made SC for me. I've spoken with a lot of people who were into MP a lot more than me and while they all want to battle each other, they still crave for the story to continue.

And that's something that fascinates me a lot tbh. After all these years people still want to know how the story contiunes. So yeah, SC is known for it's MP but what made it famous was it's story if you ask me.

[acos_N]

You are far more annoying than the Blizzard fanboys.

Gunna go with this one. Blizzard's games are not special in their own right- what makes them so damn good is Blizzard's willingness to go above and beyond. Its odd that things like campaign editors are not standard issue for most PC games today, but blizzard did it over 10 years ago ffs.

I absolutely love blizzard games- have been since I picked up SC and D2 back in the day- but they didn't get my loyalty because they spew crap.

[Enosh]

The only thing good I see about the SC2 gameplay is that they don't try to innovate for the sake of innovation like some other developer I don't wanna name

name one

[Black]

Knock it off with the personal attacks. Don't be presumptuous about a person's opinion. Don't use faceless groups [i.e blizzard fanboys/haters/etc.] to build strawmen to knock down. Act like normal human beings and discuss things like adults.

The next person to be hostile is going to get banned from the thread at least. Really, I expect better from all of you. It's just a game. This is just the internet. This is just a thread.


name one

This is also not appropriate. This is off topic, and also confrontational, and not very constructive.

Srsly guys. Srsly.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I don't understand the title. Why is there a NDA on a demo? Or is this just alternaspeak for they've done a marketing push?

[LoCo]

There was an NDA on the demo because Blizzard didn't want the information to be released until such a time that they were willing and able to give still more information at Blizzcon.

So they put the NDA on the demo, lift it a few days before Blizzcon, everyone gets a little more excited about Blizzcon, and then they give still more information so that people will feel even better about going to Blizzcon. Happy fans means they sell more.

[A176]

I think you're misunderstanding ... they "demoed" SC2's single player to the press. Its not a "regular" demo that will be released to the public. We will be getting a multiplayer beta/demo (opt-in for a chance to participate at battle.net) hopefully when blizzcon comes, which happens to be the end of this week.

[Nanaki]

Gunna go with this one. Blizzard's games are not special in their own right- what makes them so damn good is Blizzard's willingness to go above and beyond. Its odd that things like campaign editors are not standard issue for most PC games today, but blizzard did it over 10 years ago ffs.


Widespread developer support for modding, mission editors, and such are going the way of the dodo, it seems. Most developers seemed to have stopped bothering entirely with them, with even the ones known most for the modding capabilities in their games (Bethesda, Relic) have started to waver a little bit. Hell, Blizzard continues to be the only RTS developer that directly supports P2P Distribution of mods/maps (Blizzard has everything compartmentalized, so all mod data is stored on a map file) through their own networks.

Hell, that is one of the reasons why I will likely buy Starcraft 2. Getting people to actually try something new is a hell of a lot easier if you are not forced to find someone generous enough to host your maps/mods on their website, and a lot more people are also willing to try it since they do not have to hassle with visiting third party sites and manual installs as battle.net does everything for them.

[acos_N]

name one

Its actually prevalent enough in the industry that innovation vs. non-innovation is something that turns up as a subject in many reviews, articles, ect, and some companies are more willing to wade into the swamp of innovation than others, but that is another thread, and another discussion.


In blizzard's own words, their strength is their capacity to polish their game. What we're seeing in the single player campaign is something any strategy gamer will love- a lot of different ways to approach one "problem."

And, honestly? Blizzard is at the point where they really don't need to make "marketing pushes." Their games practically sell themselves.

[WhiteGulls]

Well, I can't say it looks bad. Doesn't make me shit my pants in joy, but it looks like it could be fun. My RTS crew is just now getting into DoW 2, so by the time this comes out, it should be plenty fun to have a definably different RTS to play. As much as I think Blizzard's games are overrated, they can be pretty fun with the right group of friends. The only thing really interesting to me in that video was the automatically changing environment, and that's purely because I can imagine some of the WC3 maps my friends play taking advantage of that to make the games more fun.

[cmstophe]

Love DoW, could not stand DoW2.

Blizzard games are very special, to me. SC2 is gonna be insanely epic if you take all 3 campaigns into account. Gonna be sweet.

[Afoxi]

Single player is going to be fairly entertaining i suspect. I like heavily scripted missions.

I'm liking how battlecruisers barrage fire this time instead of shooting one zergling per shot.



So while I'm here let me comment on the Voices:
"We're getting tore up out there" - Sounds weird in the context, but the guy doesn't sound like he's actually there. Given his line, I don't think the Marine who said that was actually there.

"The Dominion military abandoned them when the Zerg attacked. They didn't give a damn about the colony." - WARCRAFT 3 HUNTRESS IS THAT YOU?

"ALERT: Lava surge imminent" - Look at the animation.

"Yo! Yeah, yeah, I'm goin!" - SCV sounds tougher and the portrait looks cooler. :D

[Vijil]

"Starcraft II looks AWESOME as ever. That is how you do single player missions *looks at relic*."

Bah, I don't believe Relic have the money or manpower to top Blizzard when it comes to length and polish on SP campaigns, or any part of games for that matter. A truly good, varied campaign is very difficult to do well. It increases the dev time massively. Granted Relic could have done *better*, but not enough to beat Blizzard. Unfortunately for small(er) developers like Relic, superdevs like blizzard set the bar extremely high to the extent that gamers will be dissapointed with anything less, screwing over the companies that simply can't produce on that level due to reasons beyond their control. It's sad but inevitable.

I'm not ragging on Relic at all here, I love Relic, but they're fighting an uphill battle.

[ricolikesrice]

dont care *that* much about the multiplayer (only playing with friends occasionally, and then we play just for *fun*, i.e. it doesnt matter as much whether the game is properly balanced etc. etc. ) but the singleplayer previews sound pretty good far.

kinda like DoW2 done right (mind i didnt hate DoW2s SP but while it was somewhat fun it left quite a lot to be desired).

one thing i m wondering about is their mapeditor - loved making and downloading others singleplayer/coop levels/campaigns back in the SC1 days - thats the main feature i loved about SC, not the MP in itself. but since they re now splitting the campaign in 3 games/addons i m fearing blizz will pull a relic and release a map editor thats only good for making MP maps - afraid of gamers making their own protoss/zerg campaigns. hope i m wrong on that... anyone know if blizzard has released any statements regarding their editor for SC2 yet ?

EDIT: what i really like is the many new/old units you will only see in singleplayer. i can easily understand keeping the unit list small for MP / balance reasons ... but its great to see a dev thinking about the SP audience for once.

[Surrealitycheck]

Bah, I don't believe Relic have the money or manpower to top Blizzard when it comes to length and polish on SP campaigns, or any part of games for that matter. A truly good, varied campaign is very difficult to do well. It increases the dev time massively. Granted Relic could have done *better*, but not enough to beat Blizzard.

To be fair CoH was easily Blizzard quality, and it took them 4 years of sweating blood to do. Whereas DoW2 was splurged out in 2 years, so for what it is it's decent. It's just really marginal in comparison with what it could have been :/

[Shuma]

@Ricolikesrice:

They're releasing the Map Editor, in the Beta. Last i heard. And it will be able to do everything, in fact i think they said that they did the campaign with the map editor that will be released to the public. There are lots of info about the map editor, just google it.

Important thing is, that it's way more awesome than the original, in one of the latest interviews i think they said that if you wanted you would be able to create SC2 the First person shooter with it.

And i think they said that all the old units from SC1 would return, but i don't remember where i read that so it might have been just a rumour. But, so far the Wraith, Firebat, Goliath are confirmed to be in the game.

[ricolikesrice]

thanks shuma, sounds great. 40k mod for SC2 would be nice but i guess whoever tried that would have his project quickly shot down by THQ/GW. :Police:

[konfeta]

Meh, it's true for every attempt to mod in another license.

Did you know that CnC: Generals was supposed to get a full conversion into a Halo RTS? How awesome would that be? Bam, shut down with a cease and desist order to pave way for Halo Wars.

*Updated the OP for 3 best interviews I've seen so far from the single-player previews. They even cover a few topics outside of single-player (more in-detail justification for lack of LAN in terms of lag and tournaments, pricing of Zerg/Protoss portions of SC2, etc.), and seem to convey what Blizzard wants with SC2 the best.

[Aesaar]

... believe it or not folks ... your map is auto-saved. This is innovative in the Starcraft II single player.

If for some reason the game crashed, or your computer auto-reboots, or your electrical power goes out—you can still recover anything you had played through. Not like any of that will happen often, but it is still cool to have this feature. It has an autosave. Blizzard no longer gets to use the word innovative.


The stuff to do between missions sounds interesting, though.

As it is, though, the single player hands-on seems to get excited over stuff that has been standard in RTS games for a while. Example:

As you reach the Dig site, you will be welcomed by an awesome sight. The Starcraft II team has been adding great and unique locations with great architecture and environment detail throughout the single player. The Dig site is a huge hole in the ground that takes about most of the screen. (Not wanting to start a DoW vs SC debate here) Winter Assault did awesome sights in 2005, Company of Heroes did the same in 2007, so did SupCom, so did WiC. I could go on. This isn't exciting. The inclusion is standard, and I'd be disappointed if it wasn't in.

http://www.blizzplanet.com/content/starcraft2/single-player-hands-on/7-20-09/Screenshot061.Jpg

That is a battlecruiser engaging Mutalisks. Happens in a cinematic. When I saw that image, I again found myself wishing Starcraft 2 would go in a direction where scenes like this are found in the actual gameplay, rather than just in in-game cinematics. That means when a battlecruiser actually dominates the map, both in terms of size and power, rather than being a 10m laser-armed hot air balloon that can be brought down by three dozen marines with assault rifles. Too bad, because that image looks awesome.

The way it's developing, I think Starcraft 2 would have been a good game 3 or 4 years ago. Now though, the mechanics seem a bit dated. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope so), but the more I read, the more I think I'm right. I'll reserve judgement for when I play it.

[scoiatollo]

The mechanics are indeed "old" but unlike other games SC2 doesn't want to reinvent the genre. The mechanics have been working for over a decade now and since Blizzard mainly aims at the pro gaming scene, they don't want to add randomness like we have it in CoH/DoW(2).

If you want to play the game just casual you'll be able to chose between countless mapmods and play the Battlenet ladder from time to time. And since Blizzard is keeping a lot of the Battlenet stuff off the media right now I think we can expect a lot more...

[Surrealitycheck]

The mechanics have been working for over a century now

wat

[scoiatollo]

StarCraft was released 1998, and if you want even back than the game mechanics were a couple of years old. SC2 changed very little about it's basic game mechanics that's why I said that they exist for more than a decade now, and you can say whatever you want, they still work like a charm...

[Surrealitycheck]

StarCraft was released 1998, and if you want even back than the game mechanics were a couple of years old. SC2 changed very little about it's basic game mechanics that's why I said that they exist for more than a century now, and you can say whatever you want, they still work like a charm...

Don't worry I was just making a stupid joke about your use of English :P

The way you wrote it it sounded like SC was 100+ years old!

[scoiatollo]

D'oh! Decades... stupid me... need to post less while I'm distracted with my work...^^

[Retroboy]

This comment might deserve its own thread, but I'm wondering if Blizzard is revving the hype engines way too early, even for THEM.

Considering that StarCraft II was first "announced" back in June of 2007, which is over two years ago, they're not even in beta yet, and that some sites are projecting 2010 Q2 for release, that adds up to 3 years of media hype.

I don't know if that kind of delay will help the game or hurt it. My guess is they're slam out a bajillion ads in the quarter just before its release to compensate because by then the furor will have died down and only grumpy fanboys will be tracking its progress with any sort of dedication.

[LoCo]

You have already failed with that prediction Retroboy.

SC2 will sell like hotcakes no matter when they release it.

People, and I don't mean just Blizzard fanboys, have been waiting for this game since BroodWars. Another few months isn't going to change anything, and neither will another year or two.

But it won't be that long. It's not 'some sites' that are projecting that, Blizzard said it would be out in the first half of next year. They just haven't given official word on the exact date.

[konfeta]

Rumors were talking about a 2009 Spring Beta. Which would fit Blizzard's usual Announce-Beta-Release 2 years pattern. I don't think they announced it too early as much as they underestimated the work needed to be put into Battle.net 2.0.

Though, SC2 never really got that much marketing hype. I mean, compare it to something like WoW or Halo. All of SC2 info came from their boards, website, interviews. WoW hype was trucked into Gatorade for Christ's sake, Halo had TV commercials.

Look at D3 as well. Total information drought since last Blizzcon. People are going into frenzy over scraps. Same for Bioware games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2.

Starting the hype early isn't a problem, it's how well you manage it. Too much of hype kills the interest off in a game, but feeding scraps seems to work perfectly.

[ohaunlaim]

I dont know, Retro might have a point. Until I saw this thread I had already nearly forgotten about SC2. And definitely all of my insane hyper enthusiasm from even last year has disappeared.

[Shuma]

Who cares, you would've bought it as soon as you heard that it came out. Loco is right, it doesn't matter what happens, SC2 will sell.

[Retroboy]

Look, let me clarify: Unless Blizzard's tinfoil cloaking device fails and the brain-controlling interferonical signals from the competition invade the acceptance testing labs and fubar the whole 'yes this is fun to play' process, Starcraft 2 will not fail. This is pretty much an axiom.

My point is that Starcraft 2 won't have an optimal release if they don't gauge the release hype correctly.

If it's over-hyped, the fanbois will scream at the lack of meeting their stupidly unrealistic expectations, and the surprises will be spoiled either because too much information is released too early (e.g. I think releasing this many details of the single-player campaign right now is spoilerific) or because they'll reduce their own flexibility (e.g. "What do you mean, the turrets don't turn in Sins of a Solar Empire?").

If it's under-hyped, it'll have a gentler first-sale cycle and a lot of production cost won't be offset by pre-release and immediate retail sales.

A lot of it has to do with schedules for financial investment and recovery. Blizzard (which means their funding providers) is pumping a shitload of money into this game without a stitch of revenue until either people sign up for presale or it hits the shelves. The best thing for any company in this industry is to have a hugely successful preorder set and launch week because the lenders will be watching the numbers carefully. A carefully orchestrated hype engine that maximizes pre-order, release-day, first-week, and first-month sales makes investors happy. They are less so if the sales peak hits after a couple months. And that translates directly into the amount of capital that they'll be willing to invest in the creation of the next title, not to mention the amount of satisfaction and word-of-mouth from the fan base.

[OrionAssante]

I am also really excited about the editing tools. I remember when Starcraft first came out I spent so much time in the editor building my own campaign. I actually had a really cool multi level campaign built with lots of neat effects and stuff. So I am actually excited just to see what we will be able to do with this editor.

[konfeta]

Retroboy, that line of thought is kind of the number one thing people tend to hate about the modern game industry. It's the same one that brought us the like of Bobby Kottick and EA of old (they got better).

In other words, it means orchestrating an exact release day, game completion/quality be damned.

Remember Hellgate: London? The penultimate example of what happens when a developer does chain themselves to their own hype machine and marketing.

[Retroboy]

Remember Hellgate: London? The penultimate example of what happens when a developer does chain themselves to their own hype machine and marketing.You completely missed my point. Hype is all about TIMING. HG:L failed because its makers didn't have realistic expectations about what could be accomplished within the timing and budget that the game had to work within.

Plus, as a concept, it was horribly implemented. Seriously, the caricature (I hesitate to call them character) animations in the "hubs" were so artificial that my monitor started smelling funny. And the gameplay/quest system was repetitive and well past its best-before date.

But my discussion point was with hype timing, not game quality. As I've said before in case it was missed, SC2 will be a success. It will not be another HG:L. The issue is whether it will be as much of a success as it could be if the hype engine to support such a fantastic product (which HG:L was not) has the right timing for its release.

I never said - or even implied - that Blizzard should chain themselves to their marketing. What I'm saying here is that Blizzard should control their marketing. SC2 still has a long way to go before it reaches launch.

[drChengele]

It is my opinion that Blizzard's overhype cannot harm the company. Unfortunately.

This is Blizzard, and more importantly, Starcraft we're talking about. Everyone and his dog will buy this game, we all know it. If tomorrow Blizzard announced revolutionary new mechanics such as the ability to drag-select your troops, (pushing the envelope further than any other RTS in history - now you can select more than twelve units at a time, dun dun duuuun), people would still buy it.

That's what hype does. Eh treats people like morons and doesn't afraid of anything.

And to be fair, Blizzard does not exaggerate much more than other developers. It's just that their exaggerations are more high-profile.

[Afoxi]

Browsing through the wiki, it seems a lot of units have been changed.

Terran have a massive 120hp infantry in the form of the Marauder, the Medivac Dropship combines the function of a Dropship and a Medic into the form of a Dropship, that floating combat constructor thing has been replaced with something that looks rather sleek, there is a Flamethrower Buggy, and the Terran Battleship lost Plasma Bombardment, but got two new upgrades to choose from including Defensive Matrix (200hp shield for 20 seconds) and the freaking Missile Barrage (Area Effect Air to Air) which looks freaking awesome.

Pity about the Plasma Torpedo Bombardment though, it looked awesome for clearing ground just before landing a few dropships worth of marines, but I guess that overlapped into Banshee/Siege Tank territory, but to be fair the Terrans could use more anti-air. :p

Zerg gets the Roach which... is hard to kill unless you focus fire... just like real Roaches... and the Protoss got the Tempest recolored and renamed to "Carrier". This is a very good thing, because the Tempest was a cheap air to ground only knockoff which was also fragile.


Chengle - Which is strange, because even if Supreme Commander let you select thousands of units at a time, the ability to now select a WHOPPING TWENTY-FOUR units in Starcraft 2 turns me on for some reason.

EDIT:
Wiki (http://starcraft.wikia.com/).

[Black]

People fail to see that classic RTS mechanics still have an unexplored depth to them. Just like slight modifications to the starting position or movement rules of Chess create an essentially different game, changing the units, the interface, and the mechanics of a classic RTS creates a new game with its own unexplored potential.

In both cases, the core of the game is the same. It still behaves the same. The same principles apply as they did in previous variants. But nonetheless, a great deal of theory must be discarded and made anew. The effect is that slight changes that you don't think are significant actually are very important. It makes the game new to casual players even though their grasp of theory is intuitive and rudimentary, because they still have to assimilate the game's new ideas, even if they don't consciously do it, and new to serious players, because theory is half the fun and effort of competitive gaming. It leads to new metagame and exploration of a new landscape.

The volatility of classic RTS mechanics is what makes small changes so significant. These mechanics are very combinatorial in nature, in a mathematical sense. Small things- ideas, opening decisions, units, etc.- are combined together, to play the game. The funny thing about combinatorics is that changing the rules ever so slightly can really throw everything off. The fact that Starcraft is considered so balanced is remarkable, because it took many slight (but volatile!) changes to bring it to its current form.

Chess, too, is the culmination of a basic idea enriched with small, but very, very significant changes. Things like allowing pawns to initially thrust forward two squares, making the Queen and Bishop more powerful, and introducing the castling move. All these ideas don't fundamentally change the mechanics of chess, they are just variations on the idea of the Chess boardgame. Still, they were very innovative ideas that led to the modern game we play today.

The point is that if you doubled the units allowed in SupCom, you don't really change the way the game is played. The game's theory is *exactly* the same. But what if you doubled the population cap per player in Starcraft? Maxing out pop happens in almost every game between skilled players. What if the cap was higher? Would that allow more delay tactics? Would there be a critical mass possibility for a faction, somewhere in there? The change isn't nearly as simple.

People who have playtested Starcraft II still compare its mechanics directly to Starcraft. That is because they are essentially the same game. But this is not a bad thing. You would thing that it means that SCII brings nothing new to the table. The evidence is to the contrary. People are comparing the mechanics, and they are doing it vigorously. The theory has changed. The way you play has changed. All these seemingly small changes have created a revolution in waiting. If Blizzard makes the right changes, the ones that are most interesting and work most closely together, then they have done something exciting.

[Afoxi]

Like... how something as simple as Zerglings with improved pathfinding seems like a minor change, but is a really really huge buff for them.

Or marines standard 40hp now upgradable to 50hp! 10 hp might not mean much on paper but in practice i can count the number of times my 2-dozen marines were overrun with only half dozen zerglings left alive... which continued to kill my SCVs.

Then there's the whole Terran Anti-Air thing going on with SC2. The Goliath was one of the more powerful Ground to Air unit in SC:BW that outranged even Guardians, now that's removed, the Terrans are going to have to rely on Marines and Turrets for surface to air, although I admit now that they've got pretty good options for Air to Air combat now with Vikings and Missile Battlcruisers.

I think the biggest game changer will be the "cliff crossers", essentially ground units that can navigate across cliffs, but because they're ground units, they can't navigate past bottomless pits, lakes, and empty spess.

Where a terran player would normally put a missile turret will now be where an enemy will attack with these cliff crossers.



It's going to be a rather fun headache trying to figure out the new units. (Not sarcasm by the way).

[Mokino]

An interesting new tidbit from Blizzcon I heard on a stream:

-map creators will be able to put maps up on the B.net marketplace as "premium" content for sale. Profits will be split between the mapmaker and Blizzard. I bet the next DOTA won't be free.

Much more SC2 info is promised for tomorrow.

[Kane935]

Man, this game looks awesome. I'll probably get this game from the single player alone, since theres tons of content, and the skirmishes will be fun too. Although, the multiplayer has never appealed to me.

Also, they've seemed to change Raynor's voice again. Not sure if its the same as SCI Raynor.

[konfeta]

-map creators will be able to put maps up on the B.net marketplace as "premium" content for sale. Profits will be split between the mapmaker and Blizzard. I bet the next DOTA won't be free.

Ah, now there is a shitstorm I won't be able to defend Blizzard from. Unless this "premium content" will be on the same level as professional DLC or the Orc campaign in the The Frozen Throne, there will be bloody murder.

And if the makers of the SC2 Dota/AoS will even consider charging money for it they will be in for a very, very rude awakening. Because they have 5 years of WC3 DotA to catch up with, and actual full blown DotA games to compete with like Heroes of Newerth and Leagues of Legends that are getting full possible support through their own engine, technical support teams, and online infrastructure/matchmaking.

In fact, I can't think of a single WC3 custom map that could conceivably survive as "premium" DLC. Mapmakers would have to go above and beyond the call of "duty" to convince a playerbase used to high quality, free, and constantly updated content to suddenly start paying for it. Since "free" was the major part of the appeal in the first place.

[ricolikesrice]

-map creators will be able to put maps up on the B.net marketplace as "premium" content for sale. Profits will be split between the mapmaker and Blizzard. I bet the next DOTA won't be free.

awesome that someone finally does this and with blizz being that someone, i hope more companies learn from them.
i first thought about something like this with NWN1 and look greatly forward to it.

modding/mapping is why i m a pc gamer and i m spending more time playing user created content than "official" content tbh (ok that might also be because i m first and foremost a strategy gamer and Fall from Heaven 2 CiV4 TC happens to be my favourite game of all time that i can replay over and over and over.... )

now with modders/mappers having the additional motivation of seeing some cash for their effort i can see the old rule of "90% of impressive looking mods/maps never make a release" getting lowered a bit.

and personally i m more than willing to spend ~ € 5,- for a welldone singleplayer campaign with ~10h lenght and good ideas (even if it wont have CGI, voiceovers and all that crap professionals are so obsessed with these days rather than providing challenging & entertaining gameplay...). heck there have been plenty of mods/tc i d gladly have paid full price or more for.

freaking awesome, i hope blizz realls pulls this off and has a smashing success with it inspiring many others to follow the idea.

@konfetta:

i dont think they ll force anyone to charge money, so obviously there would be still free mods/maps and only the really advanced stuff would sell. not sure why this would/should cause a shitstorm with anyone since nobodys forced to pay for anything he doesnt want/need.

[konfeta]

Oh, the shitstorm will come regardless of the actual situation. People tend to become irrational when they hear the words "Blizzard, Charge Money, Battle.net" and start writing novels about how Blizzard has fallenth, how they are entirely obsessed with money now, standard fanboy drama bullshit, etc. etc. etc. It even has its own stock rhetoric, like the Democrat vs. Republican dogfights.

This could work out well, but I would really hope it will be restrained to truly premium, high quality content. Because stuff like Tower Defense - premium content it ain't. Especially if there are 50 other versions of TD floating at any given moment.


Also, Battle.net 2.0 screenshots:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100366
pwetty

But the talk of removing chat channels is worrying me. Are they removing the swathe of public chat channels, or are they removing the functionality itself...? Better be the former. And it better not be a pay-to-use function.

[ricolikesrice]

well i can only guess but i m pretty sure blizz wont let everybody put up some random map for sale but only accept quality content in their program.

i mean if KEWLDUDE333 could simply put up a selfmade map done in 2 minutes, charge 10$ for it and claim in the description that the download includes an epic 30 hour campaign with a DOTA like multiplayer mode .... then include some malware with the download..... obviously this system WOULD create a shitstorm ;)

the way i envision it (i m mostly a SP guy so keeping that example to SP) someone / a small team decides to make a new campaign with some cool new mechanics, heck possibly even some new units. they put up their demo/beta version for free to get people interested and then later on charge $5 for the full version. they NEED a demo/beta cause otherwise they probably wont get anybody to pay money without knowing what they get for it.

the modders/mappers then get some ~5000 downloads (probably a lot more even if their mod gets popular, some NWN mods had 100.000+ downloads ) which translates into $25.000 of which obviously the team will only get a part with the rest going to blizz - nothing to feed your family from but certainly a nice price for their effort.

[Black]

I don't understand how you can get angry at a feature that you don't have to use. Ever. Who is going to throw a shitstorm instead of... not buying premium content?

[konfeta]

Apparently you never have been to a Blizzard forum? Angry tantrums on all and everything is most of the content there. This has an added bonus of involving basically paid DLC. People are still not used to the idea that you might have to pay for something on bnet 2.0.

[Aesaar]

I don't understand how you can get angry at a feature that you don't have to use. Ever. Who is going to throw a shitstorm instead of... not buying premium content? First Rule of the General Population: People can and will bitch about absolutely anything. (I've heard people call HW2 crappy only because there isn't an individual exhaust flare for each individual engine on capships. That sort of thing.)


About SC2 not wanting to reinvent the genre: There's a difference between reinventing the genre and sticking to what is now the status quo. SC2 is doing neither. Rather, it's going backwards.

Here's wondering if the people who said C&C3 stuck to the old gameplay too much will say the same about SC2...

[Black]

How is it going backwards? I see this assertion all the time but seldom is it backed up with a proper line of reasoning.

[Border Patrol]

hes saying its going back in time a bit from games nowadays that seem to play like simulations. sc2 is still just being a game, nothing more, nothing less.

[konfeta]

Oooh, sweet. Morhaime said the Marketplace will be for maps that essentially make a new mini-game within the SC2 engine.

That map editor sounds more and more like the second coming of Jesus with the amount of pimping Blizzard is doing for it.

Also, beta apparently definitely gonna come out this year. Did Blizzard just make a release date? :wtf: Probably gonna end up being delayed again, anyway.

[Aesaar]

How is it going backwards? I see this assertion all the time but seldom is it backed up with a proper line of reasoning. It's sticking with its 1998 (or 2003, depending on how you look at it) gameplay model, rather than moving forward like every other company has done. Where are squads? cover? multiple garrissonable buildings? more than one weapon per unit (like tanks with a coax)? All of these things have become the industry standard, which Blizzard is ignoring. Not one of them is "reinventing the genre".

[Afoxi]

Just because everyone elses wheel serves you milkshake doesn't mean Blizzard has to reinvent theirs to accomodate.

[Silver_Wolf#]

I have to agree on that one... simple logic really: don't fix what ain't broke *points to Starcraft 1 Bnet figures even after 10 years*.

[konfeta]

Wow... A video of what SC2 editor is capable off. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joNPrnY4K_4



All of these things have become the industry standard

Wait, I thought one of the biggest complaints with the RTS genre prior to these innovations was that every RTS game was the same. How is everyone adopting identical gameplay mechanics just because they are "innovation" alleviate that...? The more variety, the better. SC is not a simulation of WW2 or Modern or whatever warfare, so it doesn't need coaxial machine guns or squads. I think the industry will be healthier if there are multiple, significantly different types of RTS available.

[Kane935]

All I can say is, BLIZZARD YOU ROCK MAN!
And: STARCRAFT GHOST!!! Finally, it can be made by the people. Excellent. The single player and the custom content definately mean a buy for me.

[ricolikesrice]

i think this vid has the potential to turn me into a rabid blizzard fanboy, wow does the potential of this editor look awesome.

now thats an "industry standard" i d like to see more off....

[Methuselath]

Well, I'm not much of a fan for Blizzard but damn, I'm impressed with the editor. To be honest though they have always made some of the best user friendly RTS editor I've known.

Well, its something that could persuade me to buy SC2.

[Norsehound]

I can only wonder at what the new map editor will unleash among the playerbase. Hopefully it'll be easy to use... I found War3's map editor to be a little daunting beyond simple map creation.

I just hope I'll be in a position to play the game when it comes out- both financially and performance-wise from my computer.

[Shuma]

Blizzard took it's time implementing the graphic's engine so that anyone could play the game, so no worries there. Also. Damn, the editor is awesome, and people doubted Blizzard.

[fuggles]

Wowzers. I just saw the map editor video... hot damn, that looks like something I want a piece of.

[Silver_Wolf#]

Andah Blizzardah spoketh and there wasth lighta in tha world of gamingah!

[Afoxi]

This might be the same thing for those of us who are in office/unis where youtube happens to be blocked.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/328287.html

[Weavern]

Jaw completely dropped at the map editor... unreal... just unreal :|

You mean we're getting some SC2 with our map editor!

[Saunders]

I agree with your thoughts, Retroboy. Mainly being that they obviously didn't anticipate Battlenet 2.0 being so far behind schedule, which likely will skew their planned PR campaign schedule.

[konfeta]

Art Panel. This is for everyone who remembers how underwhelming death animations were in the gameplay vids. Also, some environments, and TERRATRON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLcOSkhsa2E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8KAfmIPVgQ

[Surrealitycheck]

That editor is SWEET.

[Afoxi]

Epic guitar music on those last two vids by the way.

Once again, Blizzard out to prove that Artist Talent > Graphics Engine Power.

[Methuselath]

Well, for some reason SC1 music appeals to me and looks like SC2 won't disappoint. Art style is definitely top notch even though I disliked the gameplay.

[Afoxi]

After playing so many new innovative RTS's I'm thinking SC2 will be a welcome change of pace.

[Methuselath]

True enough, for some reason after WiC and CoH RTS seems to go wildly all over the place as a genre, which I like really. Well, it is better compared to ye olde days of everything trying to be either Starcraft or CnC.

[Shuma]

Terra-tron was awesome. "Huuuur Laser Saw".


"I am happy to be able to tell you guys that blizzard has built into the staredit for starcraft 2 the ability use/add an inventory system. I personally know one of the level designers and spoke with him at length at blizzcon. Blizzard is making huge efforts to support mod and map makers. Custom units, models, and textures are just a few things that you will be able to import into the editor to create your own custom games. Blizzard envisions Starcraft 2 as almost being an engine that you will be able to create your own game within. I would not be surprised to see a DOTA port to Starcraft2 that will be even more impressive and competitive."

-Fan-Forum Staff dude.

[Ira Aduro]

You mean we're getting some SC2 with our map editor!


Let me second this sentiment. I like SP but don't really get into competitive MP. However, I really really like making maps and experimenting with game types. SC2 Editor looks like a god send. Dare I say it looks like it will be "Best Game Editor Ever"?

[BananaMaster]

On the side note, Tricia Helfer is the voice actor of our beloved Queen of Blades, Kerrigan. :twisted:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175733

[acos_N]

you know, as much as I'd like to have the old kerrigan voice this new one isn't a bad pick either.

[Norsehound]

Blizzard envisions Starcraft 2 as almost being an engine that you will be able to create your own game within.

My... has Blizzard taken a page out of Valve's book in regard to the source engine?

[Black]

I don't understand? If there's a game that should be associated with a flexible engine well suited towards mod makers and user created content, it's Unreal Tournament.

Not that such an association has to be made. It's not like powerful modding tools are a trademark of any specific company. I just don't understand why you made that comment specifically about SC2 and the Source Engine.

[Norsehound]

It isn't necessarily the malleability of the engine, but the fact that the company goes out of it's way to provide the tools, support, and encouragement for heavy modification. I'm not aware of the relationship between UT's creators and the modders, but it seems Valve was pretty supportive of modifications to the engines. Blizzard seems to be going the same direction, if their enthusiasm for the editor is an indication.

[Kushan_Pilot]

As if it wasn't before, this is now a firm day-1 purchase.

Back with the original SC, once I got tired of skirmishes, I checked out the other game types and looked at the "oddly named" list (Use Map Settings). I think my first custom game was "Starship Troopers" related. I was jazzed :) . I'm not sure that I ever went back to skirmishing as much as before.

Tower defense, various types of Dungeon Master maps, survival maps, etc. Risk-free entertainment, freed of win/loss statistics and with you allowed to have nothing but fun, a-holes and their deviously edited maps permitting (hidden money triggers, etc.).

[Shuma]

@Norsehound:

I think that i've never seen a game with as many mods/maps/models/skins/ as Unreal Tournament in my life. And since they promote mods even in the consoles then i guess that their relationship with the modders is close.

[A176]

The Unreal, Quake, and HL engines were among the most heavily used systems for modders - that's a given. Seeing this kind of capability in an RTS is simply astounding and as far as I know, an industry first. The next most heavily modded rts series I can think of is c&c.

[scoiatollo]

C&C? Don't you mean WC3? Or do you count the various reuses of the engine for the last few years as mods? ^_-

It's somehow strange though, Sourcemods allways had a bigger audience than Unrealengine mods, although Unreal allways had a huge load of mods....

[Shuma]

Oh also, this is a screen of the Battlenet 2.0, look on the left.

http://www.scarea.pl/screens/bnet_2.0/bnet20_screen05.jpg

Blizzad plans to support, Mod achievements.

[Eblake]

In fact, I can't think of a single WC3 custom map that could conceivably survive as "premium" DLC. Mapmakers would have to go above and beyond the call of "duty" to convince a playerbase used to high quality, free, and constantly updated content to suddenly start paying for it. Since "free" was the major part of the appeal in the first place.

I will say that when I read that the custom Dwarf Campaign maps came to mind.

[Retroboy]

You know, I'd be a lot happier if some of these amazing things Blizzard is planning on supporting were released AFTER the game was available...

Diablo III's now not until 2011 minimum, and StarCraft II's been cut down from a single-player campaign perspective to focus on just one of the three races, and it's still likely a year away.

I don't mind waiting a while after its announcement for the release of a quality product, but this is a bit extreme.

[konfeta]

The map editor and battle.net 2.0 seem rather central to SC2's release. I don't think they could just implement them after. Look how that turned out for Relic - 6 months of bashing until they got around releasing the thing.

[Infidelicious]

It isn't necessarily the malleability of the engine, but the fact that the company goes out of it's way to provide the tools, support, and encouragement for heavy modification. I'm not aware of the relationship between UT's creators and the modders, but it seems Valve was pretty supportive of modifications to the engines. Blizzard seems to be going the same direction, if their enthusiasm for the editor is an indication.

http://www.makesomethingunreal.com/

I'm pretty sure Epic does more for mods than valve.

[Black]

As a note: I deleted posts that were non-constructive. What is a non-constructive post, you ask? Well, it could: one that reposted an opinion somebody already supported without adding anything new, one that trolls or takes a pot shot at a vague group of people, one that doesn't follow from the current flow of conversation, or... well use your common sense.

Please, read threads, make posts as if you know you're talking to real people, and put a little effort into it.

Edit: Also, try not to derail too much into a discussion about Source Vs. UT.

[archaon376]

Blizzard's map editors have always up'd the value of their games drastically. The original SC editor allowed for a lot of interesting scenarios; the WC3 took it 10 steps further; I can only imagine how badass this next one is going to be.

People talk a lot of shit about Blizzard, but, damn, their games are worth every penny and then some.

I expect SC2 will be the game to hold me over for a long time (or at least until Diablo 3 - but I expect I'll still be going back and forth between that and SC2).

[acos_N]

You know, I'd be a lot happier if some of these amazing things Blizzard is planning on supporting were released AFTER the game was available...

Diablo III's now not until 2011 minimum, and StarCraft II's been cut down from a single-player campaign perspective to focus on just one of the three races, and it's still likely a year away.

I don't mind waiting a while after its announcement for the release of a quality product, but this is a bit extreme.

1) since battle.net is the only multiplayer function SC2 will have it NEEDS to be done now. It doesn't make sense to hold it off.

2) the single player campaign changes actually mean more work on the part of blizzard. It means they're planning two expansions rather than just one. Beyond that the Terran campaign is going to be just as long as the total campaign from SC (Around 30ish missions)

3) Blizzard's pretty extreme. When I saw that they were aiming for the first half of 2010 I just shrugged.

[A176]

the Terran campaign is going to be just as long as the total campaign from SC (Around 30ish missions

I'm holding out on reviews for this actually, to see if indeed the SP is as long as they claim. I'm one of those who feel somewhat suspicious of the two expansion plan. The SC1/bw story was the very thing that got me hooked on SC and I don't want to feel milked for the continuation :|

[Retroboy]

I don't WANT to play a single-player campaign that limits you to commanding one race though. With the original SC I played through the campaign and found my way into skirmish where I could see the vantage points of all three races since I'd role-played all 3 of their individual advocates. I could carry over the motivations of those campaigns to add a little atmosphere to the other game variants. Unless they do one hell of a job of telling the story from the perspective of the Protoss and Zerg in the initial SP campaign, I don't see that happening as well in this round. There might not be that Tassadar-sacrifice or Kerrigan-reveal moment that made me really want to play on with their races.

And like A176 I have my doubts about the release schedule for the next chapters in the story. I'm suspicious that we'll have another Half-Life 2 episode 3 on our hands there, particularly given Blizzard's traditional lack of rapid releases.

[scoiatollo]

I have to disagree with you on that part Retro, as I see it those episodes will be similar to expansions rather than a full game (Blizzard isn't sure how to price it and make it dependend on how much content they'll actually offer), so we have a pretty balanced game (with all this beta testing going on I'd be shocked if it wouldn't be), we have a working engine, we have tons of ideas left that weren't implemented in the original release because they appeared imba/didn't fit/... and we probably have a (nearly) fully written story.

Now look at what they released so far:

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness 1995
Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal 1996 (expansion pack)
StarCraft 1998
StarCraft: Brood War 1998 (expansion pack)
Diablo II 2000
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 2001 (expansion pack)
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 2002
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne 2003 (expansion pack)

As you see there's ~1year between the original release and the expansion, and judging from all the informations we have, I find it very unlikely that we'll have to wait for more than a year until we get the first "expansion".

[Afoxi]

It's usually the initial game that gets delayed to hell.

[Retroboy]

Scoia, I would be quite pleased to be proven incorrect re release date durations. But I will likely still have to wait TWO YEARS to get the third-race perspective unless their single-player campaign is written by an awesome mission planner / author that somehow can blend an immersive Protoss and Zerg experience into a Terran-led campaign.

P.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI

[Weavern]

Retro, chances are we would have to wait 2 years for a complete experiance of SC2, if not 3-4 years for all the extra bits. Why stop at 2 SP expansions for protoss and zerg? Why not do a 3rd expansion which expands all 3 SP campaigns, or a 4th expansion etc.

We may be displeased that we dont get the indepth perspective for the protoss or zerg, but we will no doubt get a lot of insight from the news that appears in the SP between mission rooms and other character interactions. This isnt the same as a full blown campaign but it should give enough. To further speculate chances are we will get the tip of the zerg motivation or just enough to make us crave them, then presto 12-13+ months later we get the expansion, which then gives us a taste of proteoss and we get that after a similar ammount of time. Blizzard should fully know that this is a risky venture, however if we get 30 terran missions, and 30 zerg missions, and THEN 30 protoss missions that's fantastic.

It isnt ideal, but it's far from worst possible outcome.

re the video: god help us if the terrain campaign finishes with soemthing like that and we have to wait a year for the next installment of the 'to be continued' :o

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I'm holding out on reviews for this actually, to see if indeed the SP is as long as they claim.
my impression was that most of the missions are going to be pretty short, and a lot of them are going to be tutorial style... the one in the videos a while back was explicitly 'Here's why bunkers are awesome'.

but even 30 short missions is reasonably long.

[Retroboy]

No it's not.

[Shuma]

Yes it is.

[konfeta]

I am fairly certain the "tutorial" missions were the ones shown in the preview, and after that they become traditionally long.

[Ira Aduro]

On a completely random note. I hope they make SC2 action figures. I'm looking at my rather lonely Hydralisk. He's the only SC1 action figure I got but he's extremely detailed and well made. I can always go for more of that.

[konfeta]

So, how did that Tychus Findley action figure fiasco end up? Did anyone actually got the thing? And aren't they selling Raynor now?