New Starcraft II details from PC Gamer
The cover story of the latest PC Gamer is all about Starcraft II. The feature highlights the development process and decision-making and shows an ample amount of Protoss units, including old-hats such as the Reavers, Templars and Archons.Other tidbits:
- Hero units will not be as important or require as much management as they did in Warcraft III.
- The current plan is to keep the unit cap at 200. In terms of unit higlighting, the development team is testing the option to let you select an unlimited of units at the same time.
- Blizzard consulted with top competitive SC and WCIII players from Korea for the balance and design process.
- The ideal SCII match will last less than 20 minutes.
- No decisions have been made as to minimum system requirements, but Blizzard has always made games for a wide range of computers. The team did note that a Shader Model 2.0-compatible graphics card will be required. (That's GeForce FX, Radeon 9000 or better, PC Gamer reports.)
Gallery: Starcraft II
[Thanks, Einhanderkiller]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Zertoss @ Jun 21st 2007 4:02PM
If memory serves, I don't think "Radeon 9000 or better" is quite accurate. I think you would need a Radeon 9550 or better. IIRC, the Radeons from 9500 and below were not compatible with Shader Model 2.0.
But that's just off the top of my head. I could be wrong.
Actiss @ Jun 21st 2007 4:21PM
"Hero units will not be as important or require as much management as they did in Warcraft III."
This is good news to me. I absolutely despised the Hero units in Warcraft III.
Zertoss @ Jun 21st 2007 4:31PM
I remembered correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R300
Radeon 9000s prior to the 9550 were based on the R200 chip, which supported up to Shader Model 1.4.
ogvor @ Jun 21st 2007 4:35PM
I really hope they let you select more than 12 units this time around. I recently held a lan party with my friends where we mostly played starcraft, and the game still holds up really well. But what aggrivated me most wasn't the graphics/resolution, the inabiliy to select an idle worker, or the subpar pathfinding: it was the fact I coulnd't send my entire army to a point on the map with one friggin click!
Crono @ Jun 21st 2007 4:55PM
I thought PC Gamer said no hero units, or at least not RPG element level hero units.
Klepto @ Jun 21st 2007 4:58PM
"The ideal SCII match will last less than 20 minutes."
Ugh. Now saying that, I never got into SC multi. But I really hope this isn't an insane resource juggle and then kekekekekeRUSH.
Crono @ Jun 21st 2007 5:17PM
yeah, the biggest reason I never played online (other than the rampant cheating) was because the game became a "who can do the same shit faster" fest. I guess if you want real strategy, you play a turned based game, but I'd really like to see real strategy enter into RTS games again.
exavier126 @ Jun 21st 2007 5:29PM
After playing DoW recently, I've realized that I'm not all that excited about this game... Unless they add some cool new features into this game, I can't really justify the its purchase.
Lurker28 @ Jun 21st 2007 5:35PM
That was the nice part about the game is getting in and out in under twenty minutes. For people that have a lot of other things to do and only have an hour sometimes (at max) it is a nice thing when you can pop in and out of a game in little to no time at all.
Games like Age of Empires and Rise of Nations sometimes would last well over an hour. Do not get me wrong I love my RTS games but I need different structured RTS games for different times of the day.
Lurker28 @ Jun 21st 2007 5:35PM
exavier126,
I have played DoW for a few years now, it is quite a bit different game, it also has it's pros and cons. Too many races and most of their abilities seems to overlap.
If you guys do not like the fast pace of the game, then it is not going to be the strategy game for you. There is a reason I do not play chess, I am a fast thinker...but a complete detailed strategist, this game works for me and how I solve problems (to each his own).
Ordeith @ Jun 21st 2007 5:51PM
Blizzard,
As a long time Starcraft Fan:
Drop the 'Hero Units'. Please.
makesevenupyours @ Jun 21st 2007 6:02PM
i myself really enjoyed heroes in warcraft III...but i do think they maybe were focused on just too much.
and my average warcraft III game time is like 18 minutes i think. i like to rush a lot, but then there is creeping and all that junk. 20 minutes is great.
age of empires is good and all...but it just takes too damn long. as with some other very good RTS titles.
Micah Neumark @ Jun 21st 2007 6:21PM
I'm under the impression that by "Hero Unit", they mean a hero unit ala original Starcraft, aka, a character that is just like the others, but that does more damage and has more hp and maybe more mana too.
Sagan @ Jun 21st 2007 7:03PM
Starcraft had heroes. And what this says to me is, that the heroes in Starcraft II will be the same: Single player only, and no role playing elements.
Under 20 minutes is great. It's not a rush unless the game is over in under 10 minutes. Also Blizzard games always have the option to slow the game down, so you can play slower if you want to.
krizoitz @ Jun 21st 2007 8:35PM
"That was the nice part about the game is getting in and out in under twenty minutes. For people that have a lot of other things to do and only have an hour sometimes (at max) it is a nice thing when you can pop in and out of a game in little to no time at all.
Games like Age of Empires and Rise of Nations sometimes would last well over an hour. Do not get me wrong I love my RTS games but I need different structured RTS games for different times of the day."
Um, yeah and thats what you have Warcraft III for. Starcraft was great because you could have epic battles, if SCII is just going to be a resource grab rush game as has been alluded to by others then i'm allready dissapointed.
Dave @ Jun 21st 2007 9:36PM
Ugh...the Fisher Price look. It wouldn't be so bad if the marines didn't have those shields...it's hard to look at the screens and think anything but Warcraft III. They look exactly like the damned foot soldiers.
Rare Hare @ Jun 21st 2007 10:56PM
The screenshot with all the Zergs swarming in on the Terran base is amazing! There have to be about 100 Zergs there all at once.
And I agree with those who are concerned about the "ideal SCII match" being less than 20 minutes. I was always a big fan of the somewhat drawn out, epic battles waged in the original StarCraft. It never dragged on like AoE, but it was long enough to immerse you properly.
skyteck @ Jun 21st 2007 10:59PM
"The current plan is to keep the unit cap at 200" WTF the thing I hate the most about rts' unit cap, what the f*$ck is the point of putting new units if you're gonna be very limited in how many you can built.
Rubang B @ Jun 21st 2007 11:23PM
The unit cap makes each match decided not by how many units you can build but by how well you can use the different units together in different situations. The perfect army would have a little of everything, so they could all cover each other's weaknesses. If there was no unit cap, you'd always get somebody with over 50 BattleCruisers.
I think that the Protoss Mothership might be what they're talking about when they say heroes. It's a big huge badass unit that can make or break a battle, and you can only have one at a time, but you don't have to waste time leveling it up.
Rare Hare @ Jun 22nd 2007 12:03AM
"I think that the Protoss Mothership might be what they're talking about when they say heroes."
Nah, I'm pretty sure they're talking about special characters specific to the storyline of the single player campaign. Such as Kerrigan in the original StarCraft.
Rubang B @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:22AM
Well my Mothership is going to heroically whip Kerrigan's ass when this game comes out.
Aberu @ Jun 22nd 2007 6:29AM
Every article is saying different things. In GFW Magazine they say no hero units whatsoever. In Game Informer the same thing. The both of them say 300 units controllable, not 200. What's the deal with the inconsistency. Or rather, 2 magazines' consistency and PC Gamers outlier differences?
Cnl_Delta @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:56PM
My fave RTS Matches lasted around 90 minutes or more (Ground Control 2.) The ideal match would end in 3 minutes for me if the other team didn't know what they were doing, not sure how SC multiplayer is though.
20 minute matches would be the ideal time for a solo game level.
mike @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:05PM
Tell me thats not the face from all the videos of master chiefs face from halo 3 popping up.
Sagan @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:26PM
@ Aberu: There will definitely be heroes. At least Kerrigan, Raynor and Zeratul. But there will be no heroes in multiplayer.
And a food cap of 200 can mean 300 zerg units. (but only ~100 protoss units)
Jack_Frost @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:02PM
have you guys every played starcraft multiplayer? Dawn of War doesn't even compare. and the purpose of the unit cap is so computer processors can handle the number of units in the game; besides which, if you ever actually use up the entire cap, either you or your opponent sucks. that being said warcract III was a disappointment, starcraft was definitely the peak for the genre, can't wait for this game to come out.
ben @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:12PM
300 controllable unit means there will be 300 kinds of units in the game.I tend to beilieve PC Gamer on the heroes thing because there were heroes in the first. Maybe GFW and GI were talking about multiplayer.
Thomas @ Jun 28th 2007 9:39PM
@Comment 18: The cap is so both opposing armies are balanced as far as units management.
I hope to find this mag at newsstands soon. Im kind of still hopeing that the heroes will be story only "suped" up units with different skins(like in the original SC). No level ups and stronger abilities. The unbalanced heros in WCIII(that concept) will ruin SCII IMO.
Barok @ Jun 30th 2007 10:37AM
Um, yeah and thats what you have Warcraft III for. Starcraft was great because you could have epic battles, if SCII is just going to be a resource grab rush game as has been alluded to by others then I'm already disappointed.
I agree with this guy. They should make it be like the original Starcraft but make it be a bit different considering the new units and maps. I'm a bit worried but we have the Koreans testing it so it should be alright.
Hawk @ Jul 7th 2007 11:03AM
yes, as long as only the best programmers and gamers are at work balancing the gameplay, and very creative people designing the single player mode (WITH HEROS), SC2 will be such a bad-ass, ultra-sexy game!!!!!
I disagree with having heros in multiplayer, some noobs will be upgrading their stupid heros and win it only because of fire power, rather than a non-noob winning because of using many different units, in as many ways as possible with perhaps 1 hero if they'd like; Or, before creating a game on battle.net, there could be an option to en-/disable hero units; and i disagree with RPG style heros like Warcraft III appears to have (I've never played it though).
but if Blizzard doesn't make any hero units for the single player even, then I'd be deeply disappointed; i believe SC2 should have even more hero units than the original StarCraft! and what would be even better, was if a mapper could edit each and every unit's name/equipment and thus make it a hero; at least for a limited number of units.
Heros are a big deal for me since I'm a Jim Raynor fan, a Kerrigan fan, a Zeratul fan, a.s.o.
and at the same time I'm very excited to encounter new stand-out personalities in SC2, such as Tychus Findlay.
DarkArchonLord @ Jul 14th 2007 1:56AM
I own a GeForce FX 5600 and It isn't compatable with the shaders in oblivion, does anyone know what shaders oblivion uses?