| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (74)

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:02PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Three years later game looks ready to release. They will keep balancing it after release so they should just give it to us already.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:09PM Shagittarius said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The original is one of few games I actually returned because I disliked it so much. It really wasn't Starcraft's fault I had just played way to many RTS games at that point and it wasn't different enough. However I'm still in the same boat today, I pick up different RTS games once every couple of years thinking, "I really do feel like playing an RTS again" of course 2 hours into it I realize I made a mistake that its basically the same experience from 1992.

I'm still waiting for a truely deep wargame RTS experience, not Ro-Sham-Bo. If something like that comes along I'll check out the genre again, otherwise no.

If this really just is Starcraft with a graphics update, count me out.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:14PM Dr Blight said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
This really does look like Starcraft with a graphics update. Shouldn't have taken 11 years if that's the case.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:30PM RageOverdose said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I thought RTS games up to Starcraft didn't feature particularly unique factions that imposed more interesting matchups and situations than two people throwing units at each other that are identical. There isn't much you can do to an RTS that makes it more than moving armies around. It's like how it's hard to make an FPS more than running around and shooting, or making fighting games that are just pressing many predetermined button combos.

And, this may be functionally the same as SC, but it didn't take 11 years. Development started after WC3, and the differences will be in the new units and abilities, the new interface, and many other updates to the game engine that makes it a more consistent, glitch free, and modern experience.

It also probably took so long to ensure they kept the game balanced, but that's why they are doing this beta, so that people can test out what works and if it works well. Hell, even David Kim, one of the Blizzard employees showing the game off in Battle Reports is playing online. He single-handedly proved that Banelings are pretty beast too.

And what the hell is with all this judgement on a game that is only a stripped multiplayer beta? Have we forgot about the single player?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:34PM Dr Blight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You mean the $150 dollar singleplayer experience? No, I remember...
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:35PM SoulBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm just curious what you consider a truly deep wargame. What level of control do you want in an RTS?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:37PM SugarDaddy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Every sequel I can think of is basically the same core game. Starcraft 2 should be no different. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

To say that it should not have taken this long is ignorant of the amount of difficulty that goes into creating 3 balanced races. Even a single new unit can create an unbalance that breaks the enjoyment of the game. Not only that, but every impression I've read of the beta including Joystiq's says that's this is an extremely polished experience. That kind of polish takes a huge amount of time. All the little death animations and all those tiny details really make for a solid game. Few developers manage to create a total package the way Blizzard does.

If you didn't like the original Starcraft, then that's fine. That's your opinion and you are entitled. But give the developers some credit here. Maybe you just don't have an eye for detail.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:40PM SugarDaddy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Dr.Blight: "You mean the $150 dollar singleplayer experience? No, I remember.."

Actually it's 50+40+40 over 3 years. Hardly breaking the bank by gaming standards. Don't be such a cheapo.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:43PM RageOverdose said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Expansions aren't anything to bitch about.

Don't play the Halo series, Bioshock, or any other series with a sequel. Really, the execution isn't much different. They keep the gameplay fundamentally the same, with some updates and more story.

Would I prefer the full 3-race single player campaigns like the original? Yeah.

But I also don't care enough if the experience each time turns out to be great.

Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:04PM Wonderflex said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Want a really deep wargame, RTS - play Hearts of Iron. More mirco-managment and real combat simulation then you can shake a stick at.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:44PM R Planteer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dawn of War 2.

That is all.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:46PM EngadgetSoFunny said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
With that kind of attitude Shagittarius, I'm glad you not going to be start of the Starcraft 2 community which I'm pretty sure will be moreeee than large enough to survive without you :)
Reply

Posted: Feb 20th 2010 1:45PM Morisato13 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, another level to the RTS gameplay would be the ability to customize each unit to your specific needs rather than just creating a factory that creates a specific model. You can then invest more time into each unit building them up and creating a relationship with them. Keep in mind that these are not hero units so they still die just as easily. Think of the current units as people who have gone through basic training. Now add the concept of an MOS where you can assign and train them with a special job. They're still soldiers so they do soldier stuff, but they're also cooks, mechanics, doctors, radio announcers, as well as those dedicated front line infantry.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2010 6:01PM Draken Stark said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But the world ends in two years. I think they should rush the expansions a little bit so the world can experiance it before it's destroyed/ engufled by the sun/ whatever.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:10PM President Taco said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i've been playing it since I was invited 2 days ago and I have to say it's excellent. There are some balance issues, but if those get ironed out I'll lose another 500 hours of my life on this game
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:23PM Warlock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reaper rushs are annoying. The Novice maps are supposed to protect you from rushing, but they don't protect from Reapers :(

I did manage to have one game against a guy who was as bad as I am though. That was a fun game :D
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:32PM leksicon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i want i want i want

ill trade you my car for your key
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man, I wish I got into the beta. I has a sad face.

Although there is still a chance for me to get in, so I can hope!
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Supreme Commander 2 is much better. ClickCraft makes you wait for minerals and then order units one at a time. Supreme Commander you can order a 100 right at the start of the game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
lol so that way I don't have to wait for minerals to zerg rush. goty right there.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:20PM Ryan P said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sure could use one of them thar Beta Invites, 'bout now.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 6:00PM HollowYoshi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I know that feeling...
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:42PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
" and you can't adjust the camera..."
The memories are starting to sink in quickly now... I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:14PM Warlock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can adjust the camera. It works exactly the same as WarCraft 3. You can rotate or zoom in (side view). You can't zoom out from the default distance however (you couldn't in WarCraft 3 either), which I think was Joystiq's complaint.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:42PM Engerz said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I still win with Carriers.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:45PM RageOverdose said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Building motherships is a good skill toi have.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 6:18PM derdaim said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
U gotta skate!
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My problem with Starcraft II is that the game doesnt seem to be at the level of modern RTS games. It has the same scale as CoH, DoW and so on but provides the detail of Supreme Commander/Total War. In other words, I am annoyed that I am still playing with units that just stand and go pew pew pew.

That would be fine if this was a high scale game such as Total War (where units actually engage in melee and have sync kills) or Supreme Commander but I am dealing with a fairly small unit cap.

The game of SCII scale should provide far more control over units, such as cover, more abilities, being forced to engage in melee, sync kills etc. etc. But instead all I see is SC I with a polished UI (which is nice btw) and a graphical update and a few units added. Other than a graphical update SCII feels like an expansion.

Maybe I was expecting too much from SCII but I remember SCI being an amazing RTS of its time with cool unit abilities, cool factions and fun/balanced gameplay. I understand staying loyal to the original game but SCII took it too far, after 11 years of waiting I wanted more of a gameplay upgrade.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 3:55PM RageOverdose said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If that happened, SC2 would have no chance in Korean e-sports, and they don't want that. That's too complex.

The reason SC2 is relatively unchanged is because, over the course of the original's lifespan, it changed drastically from it's conception. New strategies and ways to maximize unit effectiveness were developed. It still constantly changes.

Gameplay doesn't have to just be how many control options you have. Gameplay can also be the utilization of what you have, which has the potential to change over time. SC1 has more depth than many games, and the big hope is this one follows in it's footsteps.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:43PM WiNGSPANTT from TopTierTacticsco said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess one of the only things I ever disliked about SC was that all air units just "sat there" (i.e. hovered) and fired. You would expect a Wraith or Scout to make bombing runs or something, like a fighter jet. Nope, just hovered there and fired every 2-3 seconds. The only ships that did that were the Carrier fighters, but they weren't real units.

Otherwise, though, SC is a superb game and really did a great job of presenting 3 races that played so differently yet were so well balanced.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:10PM WillCookForFood said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You called down the thunder. Now reap the whirlwind.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:15PM Generico said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I for one am glad to see that they haven't messed with the fundamentals. Starcraft is considered by many to be the best RTS of all time. Its gameplay is timeless, as evidenced by the fact that tens of thousands of people still play it over a decade after release. Most games have a life span of 1 year or less. The fact that I can still fire up the original game and have fun playing it - even with the terrible graphics - is evidence to me that the gameplay does not need to a major overhaul.

If you have a formula that created one of the most critically acclaimed and long lasting games of all time, what exactly would motivate you to mess with that? I can't even count the number of potentially great games that have been ruined by developers trying to innovate where no innovation was needed. What ever happened to "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:15PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh... that's... fine I guess. I still like the static camera though. One less thing to think about in a game all about using the thinking cap.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:29PM theglenvoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
StarCraft II on iPad. Is it just me, or does that sound pretty cool? Would the iPad be powerful enough? Because if it was, I'm imagining touchscreen controls taking it to the next level. Just me?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:05PM Jjjjames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it could maybe run a dumbed down original starcraft. That would be pretty cool though.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:31PM theglenvoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
…or any tablet for that matter. Doesn't matter to me what brand. I'm more focusing on the touch interface here.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 6:13PM SuiXide said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wait for a Windows 7 tablet and turn down the graphics... or just play the original.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:32PM Otakuon said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Yeah...not impressed with SC2. It's just TOO much of the same (event his review mentions the word "familiar" quite a few times). Games like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War 2 have raised the bar as far as how modern action RTS's should operate. I just feel like I am playing the same Starcraft that I spent countless hours playing back in college only with prettier 3D graphics. I mean, where is the Co-Op campaign? Where is the situationally aware units or their interaction with the terrain. This was the best part of Dawn of War 2. Blizzard should have just invested all the time and resources they wasted on SC2 to make World of Starcraft. As it stands, this is $180 (3x$60) of my money they will not be getting.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:45PM Warlock said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
How do you get $180? For the billionth time, the other two campaigns are expansions. They are not full price. $60 is also not standard price for a PC title.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:44PM WiNGSPANTT from TopTierTacticsco said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
All I need to know is:

Are there still Archons, and do they still seethe with the burning anger of a million suns?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:47PM Warlock said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes, though there are no Dark Archons (High Templar x2 or Dark Templar x2 both produce a regular Archon).
Reply

Posted: Feb 20th 2010 3:27AM Dark Archon PSN Archonik XBL Dar said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
HOW CAN THERE BE NO DARK ARCHONS?! WTF?!
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:46PM departer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Go get some? Come give me some! :D No beta access for me :(
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:48PM greengiant912 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As someone whom is also in the beta I only really have one thing to say. Blizzard may have taken their time on this game, but the end result is a game that will last for over a decade and will be played over and over again by countless millions. People are still playing Warcraft II, Diablo, and the original Starcraft. Name one game from another studio that has managed to do that? Blizzard's games are built to last the test of time.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:03PM Jjjjames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
just opted in for the beta. hope i get it.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:07PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Does this game still support being in your base, killin ur d00dz?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:15PM Otakuon said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Sorry...I see that the price is supposed to be $50+$40+$40...but I wouldn't put it past Bli$$ard to raise it to $60 for all three. I guess I just got fed up with them when they announced that they were going to break the game up into seperate campaings that had to be purchased seperately. What's next, each class in Diablo 3 is going to be packaged as a seperate SKU and must be bought seperately as well?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:28PM Warlock said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Bli$$ard? Wow, that's sad. Since when does $ even translate to a Z?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 5:33PM Otakuon said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Ever since at least the time they sold out to their Activision over lords...or perhaps even before then.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 6:20PM zerokku said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whenever I see $ to replace a letter in an "insulting" manner, I just think of
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/7/22/

Seeing as how you identify yourself as an otaku, that's probably not too far off.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW