×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

StarCraft 2 Terran Gameplay, Single Player Info

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the i'm-about-to-drop-the-hammer dept.

Real Time Strategy (Games) 107

It isn't all World of Warcraft at BlizzCon this year. That little sequel they're making to StarCraft has gotten quite a bit of attention as well. Gamespot has a liveblog transcript of a StarCraft II demo. This one, unlike the last, focuses on the Terrans rather than the Protoss. Several new units and build options are described, along with a bit about the single-player campaign. The campaign is the focus of Kotaku's game coverage, starring Jim Raynor and the crew of the Hyperion. "Part of the campaign in StarCraft II will be focused on Raynor's efforts to make money but taking jobs like this one, missions that ultimately tie into a larger plot. As you earn money, those funds will be put into purchasing technology--upgrades for units and units themselves. Pardo purchased (read: unlocked) the Viking ship for his next mission. This has been done to give players control over the tech progression of the game, instead of following a locked down set of upgrades. Hiking back up to the bridge, Raynor checks out the Star Map. This is where you'll choose your missions. They're much more open ended than in the previous StarCraft campaigns. You'll be able to pick the planet or system you want to tackle next, progressing the story in your own way. Mission briefings provide the summary, objectives, bonus objectives, mission bounty, and recommended technology, so you'll have to choose which best suits your current needs and matches your current level of tech."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

107 comments

Voice acting (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 6 years ago | (#20115911)

[6:25] Will the first game's voice acting return? Casting hasn't been completed yet, so it's "all up in the air."

I hope not. At least not the Fenix character's...

Re:Voice acting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117167)

No need to worry about voice acting for Fenix.

He is not among the realm of the living.

Re:Voice acting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20124117)

Meh. Artanis was worse.

Dreadfully Mediocre (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20115927)

No wonder pc gaming is dying if this is the big gaming news...

Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20116465)

you're not wrong. gaming on the pc is close to death

anyone who denies this is either deluded or part of the beardstroking horde

the pc had a lot of possibilities in its favour; a huge community (skilled) happy to churn out maps and mods, together with the fastest computer platform

"what happened?" is a question but in a way, who cares?

the vista/dx10 travesty will sound the death knell

nothing to do but get a psp and download some choice roms. its the done thing!

Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117049)

gaming on the pc is close to death
Yes, but we do it anyway.

But seriously. You haven't noticed hordes of people playing online games? Hell, I fire up Eve nearly every day for a little bit and there are usually quite a few people there. If I multiply the number of people online by the 14.95 per month, the product is not a business that's on its last legs. And Eve is just tiny compared to WoW or the others.

Are people playing those games on the PSP now? I wouldn't know since I don't own one.

a huge community (skilled) happy to churn out maps and mods, together with the fastest computer platform
You mean it's not like that any more? Nobody cares about Half-Life any more?

Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (1)

sog_abq (960133) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119019)

Wait a minute, so you're saying that people actually play PSP games? I've only seen one in the wild, and that was won in a radio call-in contest.

Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (1)

ashamanq (1077889) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119775)

I happen to find stroking my beard to be cathartic, you insensitive clod! (As for the horde part... well, it's a college campus, beards are all over.) Also, I highly doubt PC games will die off. Considering that new games (say, Starcraft 2) don't seem to be requiring DirectX 10, it doesn't seem that big a leap that other future games will not require DirectX 10.

Re:Dreadfully Mediocre (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117941)

Funny how people always bitch and moan about the downhill trend of whatever they've been a part of for any significant length of time. If all the whiny veterans were right, everything would be steadily, and quickly, driving towards mediocrity. Just because there's a lot of shit out there doesn't mean that there are no genuinely good games being made.

This thread is worthless without videos (4, Insightful)

Whatsisname (891214) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116021)

This thread is worthless without some videos. Give me videos!

I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tree.. (3, Insightful)

jfclavette (961511) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116035)

... for the campaign, but that seems like it'll be a bitch to balance properly. Let's hope they get it right and it doesn't lead to a bunch of skirmish-like missions only.

Of course, I'm probably the only person on planet earth that liked the single-player campaign and couldn't stand the multi-player (most likely because I sucked so much at it.)

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

shystershep (643874) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116103)

There are at least two of us.

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

Vacuous (652107) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116145)

This is Blizzard we're talking about, honestly, what have they released that WASN'T done properly?

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116201)

This is Blizzard we're talking about, honestly, what have they released that WASN'T done properly?
Well... The ending in Blackthorne [wikipedia.org] was not very satisfying and seemed to have been rushed.

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116399)

More like what wasn't released. And by that I mean Starcraft Ghost.

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (2, Insightful)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116555)

Let's hope they get it right and it doesn't lead to a bunch of skirmish-like missions only.
Definitely, but kotaku's preview sounds like there's a lot of game-engine cinematics between missions which makes it unlikely that they're not also heavily customizing the missions.

What I hope for is fewer missions. It might sound crazy but I think the 30 missions in the original SC were too many, at least the way they played. It felt like there were 6-7 real missions in the scripting, storytelling and mission types and then there were 3-4 skirmish missions built in to increase the playtime.

Now I think part of that was that then people expected campaigns that long and Blizzard would have been crucified if they'd only made 20-24 missions in total but I think that has changed. The success of multiplayer is the most important reason. Multiplayer and skirmish now are considered part of the gametime and they really weren't back then. The other would be that the average gamer has gotten older and we simply have less time. We want tight storytelling and missions and not all that filler that was normal back then.

Two RTSes that really nailed good mission design imho were Homeworld (great scripting, story and in-game as well as fmv cinematics) and Joint Task Force (it's imho the best game with expanding maps. I.e. you start on a small map, complete an objective and then the map expands and you get the next logical objective with a short in-game cinematic to introduce it. Supreme Commander did it too but much worse -- oh and a warning, if you're interested try the demo, ignore the reviews. The game plays more like Commandoes than Starcraft and IGN&Co apparently didn't notice. The reviews were really bad).

I want 12-15h, a campaign that doesn't feel like it's going too long (unlike this post, sry =). And after I'm done with the campaign I can play skirmish, LAN and online to get my money's worth (unless they charge money for online gaming like it's been rumored, as that would be a major cash cow in Korea)

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

toad3k (882007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117763)

unless they charge money for online gaming...

Ugh don't even suggest that. I sc isn't as server intensive as wow is. They don't have to deal with persistent inventories and they don't have massive sprawling environments or require constant expensive content updates. If they do that I won't buy. And that is despite the fact that I'm following it very closely right now. I pay enough bills per month as it is.

As for the rest of your note. I'm looking forward to online. Big time. However I will be playing through the single player and the longer it is the happier I will be. I don't care if some missions don't advance the story. I just want to play at least five well thought out, hard missions with my entire tech tree.

But what I would REALLY like to see would be single player with less emphasis on story line so that you can play over and over, like civilization or the total war games. You would pick a planet that has strategic resources, send a subset of your troops there for a turn and try your best to win without taking too many losses. And then you would defend your own planets with troops and static defenses you've stationed there. Now THAT would be fun. It is probably too late in development for such a thing, but I can hope. The pieces are practically already there.

I agree with you on homeworld. Catclysm was absolutely great. Homeworld 2 wasn't bad either. It is too bad the multiplayer was poorly thought out.

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (2)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118463)

I liked the single-player campaign but I can't stand the multiplayer (I swear 99 out of 100 melee games use some unlimited money map)..

I just hope Blizzard doesn't drop the ball when it comes to balance the heroes. I played Dawn of War:Dark Crusade and I'll be honest, I simply had my Commanders (read: Hero) stomp through most of the levels after I managed to get certain gear for them (the Tau commander is godly once you get the jetpack and rocket launcher).

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#20120071)

The interviews implied that Starcraft 2 is going to be an army game, not a hero game. It suggested that, if plot characters are present during the campaign, it will be the exception rather than the rule, so they'll probably be more like the named characters from Warcraft2 and the first Starcraft - regular units with slight buffs and special unit portraits, rather than all-destroying behemoths.

Re:I like the idea of a player-controlled tech tre (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 6 years ago | (#20122927)

Except for the fact that heroes in the original Starcraft were pretty badass when you weren't talking about victory fleets or armies numbering in the hundreds. The Battlecruiser heroes could tear away at enemy bases by flying over unwalkable terrain and using Yamato gun, Zeratul was the ultimate scout/ambusher (at 100 damage, he had one of the highest base damage in the game), (Zerg) Kerrigan was damned near overpowered as the only non-protoss unit that could use psionic storm (perfect for those zerg versus zerg missions) etc.

Unless Blizzard plans on taking a step BACKWARDS, heroes are going to be a real pain in the ass to balance. Oh and heroes in Warcraft 2 were flat out terrible. They were barely stronger than basic units and since most missions REQUIRED you to keep them alive, not keeping them stuffed in the corner of your base meant you could lose the mission from a random enemy attack.

open ended (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116045)

most of the comments on kotaku.com seem to be "open ended = bad." I have to disagree. I forced myself to play through Warcraft III but gave up on the xp because the storyline was too contrived and too repetitive.

Re:open ended (5, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116175)

That's because the fans of Starcraft, and RTS games in general, really just want to know how to "win".

Is there any RTS game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? I mean, everyone knows what strategies/units to use and when after the game has been out for a month or so. At that point, if you are a "hardcore" player, you aren't really PLAYING the game so much as following the predetermined steps necessary to win. And in multiplayer, well, we all know that in multiplayer RTS games, if you aren't following one of a couple of strategies, and building the right units in the right order, you will lose.

All of which is why I could never get into RTS games.

Re:open ended (1)

Saurian_Overlord (983144) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116371)

Agreed. I love RTS games, but only the single-player campaigns. It's hard to enjoy playing online when every single game is about nothing but who builds enough tanks first.

Re:open ended (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116581)

Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? Well, maybe checkers? Oh, wait... [slashdot.org] Ok, back to PC/video games. In an FPS game, you learn the maps to get to the weapons/objective as quickly as possible. If you don't follow that path, you will be badly outgunned and that == fail. In racing game there's only one correct racing line for each track. In a flight sim there's a whole bunch of checklists you'll have to follow to get anywhere. Shit, even in Pacman there are 5 patterns which you memorize to "win".

That is not to say that the build orders are unimportant, but there's more to it than simply remembering to build a gas extractor as soon as you get 9 drones, follow it up with another drone and a spawning pool. One has to be able to keep track of the base while attacking the enemy halfway across the map, cooperate with teammates, and quickly react to changes in your strategic situation.

Now to address the GP's point (which doesn't really seem to be related to your reply), I found the "open ended" nature of the last Warhammer 40k game (was that Dark Crusade?) to have a rather negative effect on the single player campaign. From the description of the upgrades system (you could upgrade your commander unit in DC) to the selection of the next battle from a map, this sounds pretty similar to what we'll see in SC2. Being able to buy upgrades was ok, but having to deal with the changing situation on planet(s) got annoying very fast. Sure, there was a shitload of separate maps giving you huge time wasting potential, but the worst part was that once you've conquered one region, you could be attacked there and be forced to defend it.

It's probably possible to make a more open-ended type RTS which doesn't completely suck, but I'm yet to see one. On the other hand, I've seen plenty where this aspect fails badly, like in the WH40k game mentioned above, or UFO: Afterlight. I'd say that both of those games are ok or even good overall, but the open ended components just don't work properly. While the UFO isn't really an RTS, the concept is similar: the planet is divided into regions which can be attacked separately. Once yours, all kinds of alien scum can attack it, and you can be forced to defend the same damn thing several times in a row. It can work in one of the Total War games, but not here when you start with a fixed type/amount of units.

Re:open ended (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117291)

>Is there any game that hasn't been completely "figured out"?

Anything with randomness. Anything where different players know different things.

So, most card games, which do not necessarily have winning moves. In the computer realm, multiplayer FPS cannot be "figured out" because of differing knowledge. If I move behind you where I can see you and you can't see me, my knowledge is greater, and I will demonstrate that with a shotgun blast to the back of the head. If I plant mines, and you don't see them before running over them. Even fog of war can tip the odds. Chess, go, checkers, and tic tac toe are really the only offline games that can be learned such that a game cannot be lost. If there's cards or dice, even the best player in the world can lose, regardless of whether the best player in the world is a computer or a human.

Re:open ended (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118847)

Chess, go, checkers, and tic tac toe are really the only offline games that can be learned such that a game cannot be lost.

I Am Not A Go Player, but I'm under the impression that it's rather hard to solve Go automatically [wikipedia.org]. The search space in a game of Go is so huge that it's akin to brute-forcing cryptography (^:

Also, you should add Connect 4 to that list. A computer algorithm (or a perfect player) that starts the game can be guaranteed to win.

Re:open ended (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20121309)

And how is online rts not "random" enough? Often I do the "expected" units until I notice what the others have and switch, but sometimes I make something very unexpected just for fun and how doesn't that add to randomness?

Though I always play team games and never solo which increases the amount of weird things you can do and still survive. Going for a unit which is very unexpected/"bad" in a solo game isn't all that great =P

Re:open ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117367)

Shit, even in Pacman there are 5 patterns which you memorize to "win".
I think that's the point they're trying to make exactly. Memorizing the patterns to Pacman makes it possible to play until you "win", but when you're just executing memorized patterns you aren't really playing.

Re:open ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117419)

Combat flight simulators haven't been "figured out", at least the on-line kind. But who plays those off-line anyway? There isn't always a 'right' move, in fact a bad move may be the right move at times. Add to that that becoming a really good pilot takes a lot of time (200 hours, at least) but you can have fun before that.

Re:open ended (4, Informative)

skam240 (789197) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116851)

Most RTS games (especially Blizzard ones) are hardly that simplistic. Talking specifically about StarCraft, yes the first 5 minutes with any particular race tends to be pretty much the same. From there, however, you see a rapid expansion of game play possibilities that require players to be able to think on the fly. Sure, most good players have a few standard tricks up their sleeves for after the rush but which one is implemented depends on a variety of factors and often times require small changes depending on the players current situation in game. Of course most of the custom maps used on battle.net nowadays take away from this somewhat by removing all terrain and providing player starting spots with near infinite resources but that is more to do with player's purposely removing features of gameplay that Blizzard put in.

Basically, the rush phase is there to weed out any players who haven't mastered the game's fundamentals and becomes near instinctual for skilled players. What follows after is the real meat of the game.

Teams is better too (3, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117573)

I remember that some of the best strategies came into play when playing between teams. If one player was, for example, massing carriers, one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague. That one will happily suck down the life of enemy units, which to add to it your terran ally can sneak up a science-vessel, dump an EMP, and basically drop that annoying carrier-rush-force down to nearly nothing for life.

End-result is that the rush fails nicely.

Yes, there was always a lot of build-build-build-rush-rush in the RTS genre, which tends to have a lot to do with the mentality of the players involved. Anyone playing on the "much money" maps was pretty much interested in that form of strategy, whereas under normal maps a good strategy could often undermine rushers quite well. There was, of course, also a good factor of luck or recon involved as to whether one should build defences against early rushing VS focussing on getting their base/units levelled.

Ah yes.. Starcraft was fun (1)

shadow_slicer (607649) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118201)

one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague. That one will happily suck down the life of enemy units, which to add to it your terran ally can sneak up a science-vessel, dump an EMP, and basically drop that annoying carrier-rush-force down to nearly nothing for life
Yeah, the best counter I found for that was to stasis your carrier fleet so they don't lose life from the plague and can recharge their shields. That of course leaves you very vulnerable, but is better than letting the fleet be destroyed because (1) they're already in the base (2) the enemy has to guard them.

Of course what was really fun is to MC zerg and recall a full supply of Ultralisks under your carrier fleet, but that only really works in money maps.

Re:Teams is better too (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118869)

If one player was, for example, massing carriers, one strategy that often worked was to sneak up (or unhide) a devourer which would cast dark swarm (no hits from air) and then plague... End-result is that the rush fails nicely.

Calling massed Carriers a rush is like calling a Beowulf cluster your laptop.

Re:open ended (3, Informative)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116943)

Try Total Annihilation. The AI in that game is ridiculously smart, and learns between sessions. I remember when I first started playing I went heavy on bombers and fast airborne strafing runs across the enemy base. A couple of games later I tried to steamroll the CPU again, but this time all my aircraft were met with a hail of grisly anti-air death. I was shocked, and amazed.

In the end it really forces the player to constantly be trying new playing styles, new strategies, and the resourcing became even more important. TA worked on a "income vs. expenses" model, instead of having resource "stockpiles" like traditional RTSes. This allowed you to maintain a totally automated production line, whose unit AI you can set before it even rolls out of the factory. It allowed truly large-scale thinking, where you can hold a line and fight a massive war instead of micro'ing your units and engaging in limited skirmishes.

Re:open ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117361)

Actually the TA AI is really stupid, it'll attack the nearest enemy unit (buildings are also units). Still, a fun game.

Re:open ended (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119027)



Try Total Annihilation. The AI in that game is ridiculously smart, and learns between sessions. I remember when I first started playing I went heavy on bombers and fast airborne strafing runs across the enemy base. A couple of games later I tried to steamroll the CPU again, but this time all my aircraft were met with a hail of grisly anti-air death. I was shocked, and amazed.

In the end it really forces the player to constantly be trying new playing styles, new strategies, and the resourcing became even more important. TA worked on a "income vs. expenses" model, instead of having resource "stockpiles" like traditional RTSes. This allowed you to maintain a totally automated production line, whose unit AI you can set before it even rolls out of the factory. It allowed truly large-scale thinking, where you can hold a line and fight a massive war instead of micro'ing your units and engaging in limited skirmishes.


TA is the favored game of the arm chair general with no dexterity. The AI wasn't that grand it had the same pitfalls as most AI s. Bad on the offense tried to be balanced in everything end up being terribly predictable. You just had to D, tech a bit mass units and attack. Same as all RTS AI's. The game itself is a massing/defensive game whose play is reminiscent of C&C1. It was fun, but the extreme game length kept it off my list of games to play. It's successor suffers form that as well.

Re:open ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20120061)

Who modded the parent +4 Informative?
TA's AI was pretty much average for the time and had absolutely no learning skills whatsoever. The AI's are controlled by a single text file which contains pre-set unit names and ratios. Different maps would use different AI profiles (Air, water, MetalSea etc).

I suspect what happened with the parent is that he played his first game against a regular AI, and his second was against an Air AI on an air map, which thus correspondingly built lots of anti-air.

Correlation != Causation. Good old fashioned co-incidence in this case.

Re:open ended (1)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118495)

I'd probably have to disagree. WC3 probably suffers from this more than SC(probably due in part to heroes, smaller battle scale, autocasting, less resource management), but neither one of them suffers from it entirely, and it looks like they may be going to an extreme away from this in SC2. Strategy games boil down into being good at a few things, being the best at any one but failing the others generally won't get you wins.

1. Resource management/Building - Having more units on the battlefield is an advantage, and having them first, fastest is too. You also need the right units (anti-air vs air, etc.) This leads to...
2. Intelligence/Fog of War - You need to be able to keep tabs on what the enemy is doing, where they are, etc. This not only helps you build the correct units to counter the enemy, but also to be able to attack at the right time. If he is teching, rush. If he is rushing, defend and tech. I'll also put positioning of troops, concentration vs weak points, hit and run, etc. in there.
3. Micromanagement - Really this is tactics, not strategy, but battles can easily be pushed in favor of one or the other by precise maneuvering of troops, taking high ground, using special abilities, etc.

I dare you to simply do one of those and win at any decently balanced RTS. Any good player needs to do all three; it's true that 1 is probably the easiest to master, so you see a lot more of it in games however I've watched replays of people who beat me handily and they tended to do all three (because at a high level everyone has mastered the easy things - build orders. 2&3 play a much bigger importance.) Unless there is one unit/build path which when produced in an effective manner can noticeably crush any defense(and hence victory) at a given point in time (and leaves no significant weaknesses to be exploited beforehand) your argument falls apart.

Further, if there is no play (skill), then you should have very little problem building an AI to consistently crush human players without the advantages typically given them (more resources, omniscience), since though testing you could come up with the optimum build order, one which no human should be able to match. You even have the advantage in a SC like game (without autocast) that your AI could theoretically use every unit's special ability at the same time, something no human could do. So hop to it; I want a very good SC AI from you, focusing mostly on build paths.

Re:open ended (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118995)

That's because the fans of Starcraft, and RTS games in general, really just want to know how to "win".

Is there any RTS game that hasn't been completely "figured out"? I mean, everyone knows what strategies/units to use and when after the game has been out for a month or so. At that point, if you are a "hardcore" player, you aren't really PLAYING the game so much as following the predetermined steps necessary to win. And in multiplayer, well, we all know that in multiplayer RTS games, if you aren't following one of a couple of strategies, and building the right units in the right order, you will lose.

All of which is why I could never get into RTS games.


There is tree of optimal strategy that take a short time to work out. Predetermined is true as blizzard did make these trees. There is a lot of room to mix it up in both SC and war 3. And the strategy is knowing how to use your units and how to read your opponent. You argument if we translated to chess would be : "there are only so many moves that can win the game. If you do anything other then the branches that win you lose. God I wish it would just let me play and win with my awesome strategies. All of which is why I could never get into chess."

Each race in SC/war 3 have some roles that can play. Gaining an early advantage means giving up late game options. Building for late game is gambling against early attacks. playing a balanced games means you will be out matched at some points in the game. Time is critical so if you don't optimize you will lose against low skill players. I assume you never really got into it but given exactly the same build I'd probably crush you. It's not about what units you make available to yourself but also how you use them and how your opponent reacts. Complaining about the need for an optimal build is highlighting how little you know about the game and getting +5 insightful for it just means some people with mod points were similarly disenchanted with multilayer because they found out they didn't know how to play.

honestly, in what online game is there not a optimal general strategy. If you can't remember where the power ups are in a FPS you will be similarly eaten alive online. If you can't remember how to do apex turning in a racer your will be as well. Ever try playing a 2d fighter online, if you can't execute moves on command you haven't a hope. Knowing your units and what is the optimal path in getting them is a basic skill in RTS's. Not advanced or hardcore, basic. It gets more complicated from there. unit control, counters, etc... I suppose the ideal game for you is one where both side start with exactly the same units on a symmetrical map and each unit is perfectly the same. Well buddy you go play checkers.

Re:open ended (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20120985)

Sure doing the right units helps, but a skilled player can use "wrong" units vs someone less skilled and still win, also attacking and expanding at the right moment and so on makes a difference aswell. And of course in the case of wc3 having the right unit type hit the enemys right unit type and/or decide if it's worth focusing heroes or not will make a difference aswell.

Also when people don't scout you can pull of very unexpected things such as only massing siege tanks or something.

Also in say WC3 I read somethere that as ud vs orc if ud had head hunters (piercing) ud should go ghouls (melee) which is logical, but if the orc switched to grunts (melee but much harder than ghouls) the ud should switch to fiends (piercing) which to me doesn't make sense since fiends takes extra damage from normal attacks and do less damage vs medium armor, but for some reason that should be the right thing to do where I expected keeping to ghouls (or higher tier units) would be better.

Someone care to explain why? I guess it might be because fiends are ranged and you can move them around a lot so the grunts never reaches them but what do I know.

Re:open ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20124791)

Most of RTS games that are poorly balanced exhibit the flaws you pointed out. Neither SC nor WC3 (but WC3 only to a lesser extent) suffer from this flaw simply because there has been so many revisions to ensure the complexity and viability of the games (lateste SC patch was released a few months ago, after nearly 9 years).

The issue I want to challenge here is the mindset that playing a game for a few hours means that you have a grasp of the intricacies behind understanding it. You certianly wouldn't claim that chess is a poor game and fairly linear after trying it out a few times and being trounced by your friends. But seeing some metagames in action doesn't hint at all at the real frameworks for trying to really understand the game.

I will illustrate this with an example from SC - but first I want to point out that maps/locations are a big part of the game, meaning they sometimes dictate the playstyles and viabilities of certain openings. A conservative opening on one map might be extremely risky on a different map, because suddenly the risk distribution changes (you can now make a different set of assumptions about their play etc.). But, let's take a canonical map like Lost Temple (which is not played in pro circuits anymore) and locations like Terran (3 oclock) vs Protoss (9 oclock).

Terran immediatedly has a number of different openings:

At 3, he will pay attention to Protoss scout - if it comes early, it means Protoss is at 12, opening the possibility for a BBS cheese rush (10/11 Rax -> SCV+Rine Rush). This is a sort of all in that can also work if Toss does double expand.

He can double fact, speed/mine vult rush.
He can double fact, port, vult drop.
He can double fact, bamboo push (single tank, upgrade mine, move out with 4-5 rines, and vults catch up)
He can single fact, port. Tank cliff.
He can single fact, "fake double" push with same composition and expo.
He can single fact, siege, fast expo.

As you might guess, there are many variations to any of these openings - they all depend on the information and guesswork you do on what sorts of moves the opponent is doing. And, based on that information, locations, how the opponent responds etc. you will place your moves. This is also just only an opening- there are a whole set of implications here for all the following moves, and developing a game (timing of expansions, structuring pushes, timing pushes, fork attacks).

I hope this was helpful in giving some insight to why there is still a strong following of SC fans, and why it could have developed into a professional sport in Korea.

campaign dialog (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116099)

From the looks of the screenshots, the game is gonna have some Wing-Commander-style between mission story telling. Ah, Wing Commander 2 was a pretty sweet game back then.

Re:campaign dialog (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 6 years ago | (#20123755)

I almost had to fight back a tear as I read that. Yes, Wing Commander 2 was one of my favorite games of all time, and I loved the story and characters (ignoring how they later ruined Hobbes in WCIII). It would be amazing if Blizzard were to allow us to get so attached to the characters of the Starcraft universe through this kind of story-enhancing control.

kekekeke (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116163)

We can all look forward to the kekekekeke from the koreans again I guess.

Anyone know what it was supposed to mean?

Re:kekekeke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20116193)

Alphabetized version of a Korean devious and somewhat childish laughter.

Re:kekekeke (4, Informative)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116203)

kekeke = laugh
babo = stupid
^^ = :)
Gosu = master
Hasu = average
Chobo = noob
HUK = OMG

HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE ^^

Re:kekekeke (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116423)

gosu is actually a corruption of chinese. in mandarin, gao shou (or something like that), litterally means high handed, meaning of great skill. gao shou to gosu, keeping the basic idea.

Re:kekekeke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20116443)

Ya can't live next to one another for centuries and not take some words from each other. It's like saying flavor is a corruption of flavour or something. :P

Re:kekekeke (1)

zoogies (879569) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117567)

Yeah. You're correct on "gao shou" (), but I'd be surprised if 'gosu' wasn't an actual korean word.

Re:kekekeke (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118731)

kekeke = laugh
babo = stupid
^^ = :)
Gosu = master
Hasu = average
Chobo = noob
HUK = OMG

HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE ^^
HUK U BABO CHOBO KEKEKEKE Jedi mind trick, ho ho.

Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (3, Insightful)

Nim82 (838705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116477)

Whats the big fuss over mission choice?

Dune2 had that sorted rather well years ago - nothing new there.

Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (2, Insightful)

skam240 (789197) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116903)

Despite being the first modern base building RTS I don't think most people remember Dune II.

However, I think the fuss is warented as it is exciting to see that Blizzard is updating their gameplay with new features, even if the "new" features are ones that have existed since the genre began. Furthermore, it looks like they are taking what was in Dune II forward a bit by allowing the player's performance in one mission to more greatly effect what their experience will be like in the next.

Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117299)

Actually, iirc, the game, Emperor: Battle for Dune (also from Westwood) also had this feature. If you decided to attack a particular area whose surrounding areas are under enemy control, you had a tougher time in trying to win. I can't say for sure if this was exactly how it worked because it has been so long since I last played the game.

HOWEVER, the game Rise of Nations definitely worked this way. You could choose which place you wanted to attack and surrounding friendly/enemy lands would give you reinforcements/a hard time.

So it isn't exactly a NEW idea but as with most ideas, they probably are going to improve on it.

Disclaimer: I don't exactly like Starcraft. I prefer the Command & Conquer line and also Dune. I can't believe there hasn't been a game based on the Dune universe in a long time. Bring back Brett Sperry!

Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (2, Interesting)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117529)

Not a new concept either.

Homeworld: You take the ships you got one level to the next. Could suck really badly if you didn't do one mission well, as you'd start the next and more difficult one in a disfavourable position. On the other hand, perfectly realistic given the setting.

Fallen Haven. Turns based strategy game where you could choose which territory to attack, produce and organize defence on territories that were already won, defend, etc.

Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119719)

IIRC you could select one of two maps for the second mission - which was identical no matter which map you play it on- and that was that. I hope SC2 offers more than that.

Re:Mission Choice, Dune II had that years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20124589)

Here's what TFA has to say about mission choice:

Hiking back up to the bridge, Raynor checks out the Star Map. This is where you'll choose your missions. They're much more open ended than in the previous StarCraft campaigns. You'll be able to pick the planet or system you want to tackle next, progressing the story in your own way.
That's it. Four sentences. TFA doesn't say it is a new idea, just different from the previous StarCraft. If that's your idea of a "big fuss" then you are a stupid stupid stupid stupid.

What's so special about starcraft? (1, Offtopic)

luder (923306) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116479)

I tried Starcraft Brood War a few months ago but lost interest after a couple of missions... I love strategy, sci-fi and a good story and I don't mind at all the dated graphics, but somehow I can't see what's so special about it to deserve such high ratings. IGN even called it the "best real time strategy game ever made"...

What am I missing?

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (3, Funny)

Delifisek (190943) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116517)

You wanna piss off me boy

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (2, Informative)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117461)

I always thought it was "you want a piece of me, boy".

piss off me boy (2, Interesting)

alelade (905619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20120553)

And you were right :D. Our friend has a selective recognition there. He is Turkish like me, and "want a piece of me" has no direct translation to Turkish, not on same context anyway. "Piss someone off" has, on the other hand.

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116607)

in my personal opinion there are two things that makes sc different. a) nostalgia for singleplayer. b) fantastic multiplayer by virtue of blizzard's excellent job at balancing three very different races. as far as i know, it was the first popular rts that pulled off such a system.

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116977)

*buzzer* Nope. I'm not sure who was truly first, but I know that C&C predated SC in terms of balancing different units for each side (as opposed to having both sides "clone" each others' units). Granted, C&C multiplayer left a lot to be desired, especially the matchmaking service, but SC certainly wasn't the first.

RTS games have come a long way since SC, but the thing I remember most fondly about it was its ability to tell a story while *in* a game, where previous games in the genre were limited to telling stories BETWEEN missions.

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20125275)

I'm not sure Blizzard's ever been concerned with doing something "first." I think they just want to do it "best."

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20116849)

Umm, multiplayer?

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117689)

I tried Starcraft Brood War a few months ago but lost interest after a couple of missions... I love strategy, sci-fi and a good story and I don't mind at all the dated graphics, but somehow I can't see what's so special about it to deserve such high ratings. IGN even called it the "best real time strategy game ever made"...

What am I missing?


You're missing about a decade of the game's lifespan. Obviously whatever made it "fresh" in 1998 has long since passed. I don't know if you can start playing it now, with the expectations you would have given the game's fanatical following, and not be somewhat disappointed.

Beyond that how do you even answer the question "what's so special" about any beloved game? You can list any number of reasons why Super Mario was the best platformer or Goldeneye was the best FPS in its day, but if you didn't put in the time to master them you will never understand why all of these elements shared with dozens of other games just meshed in the right way to make the game truly great. There's just not a way to explain the feeling you get when you're deep into a game that "just works", where it goes beyond just being fun to play to being something.. else.

Re:What's so special about starcraft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117737)

You have to look at the other RTSes out at the time, and the developers at the time. When StarCraft came out it was the only RTS with more than two sides to choose from. More than that, each side had profoundly different units and tactics. Even C&C only had Allied vs Soviets (or GDI vs NoD)at the time, and while the tactics were a little different they were essentially the same.

SC changed all that.

Then you have the developers. Blizzard was growing in popularity. WarCraft did all right, and Diablo was doing great. WCII came out and was very addicting for most teen gamers. Next thing you know SC lands in your lap, ALL the Blizzard Fans jumped on it and since it actually WAS an innovative RTS others joined too.

Blizzard is one of those few game developers that can claim that players like them because they ARE Blizzard. Valve and iD are the only other ones I can think of off hand that can make a claim like that.

Goodbye daylight (5, Funny)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20116509)

Well daylight, we had a good run. It's not you, it's me.

Goodbye savings account - SCII's multiplayer fees (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20117745)

SC2 will not be free to play on the upgraded battle.net; there will be a subscription fee, as dictated by Vivendi based on the success of the World of Warcraft model.

Remember the reports last year of Blizzard working on a "next-gen MMO"? This is it.

Re:Goodbye savings account - SCII's multiplayer fe (2)

JamesGecko (797637) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118955)

If that's true, bug wup. The "StarCraft II" channel on Hamachi will fill up with people playing virtual LAN games.

However, you don't know it's true. Blizzard has like three or four different teams going at the same time. For all we know, the next gen MMO could be Diablo III. :-P

Re:Goodbye savings account - SCII's multiplayer fe (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119421)

For all we know, the next gen MMO could be Diablo III.

Don't you DARE. I like my life just the way it is, teeming with possibilities for productiveness each and every day. I refuse to lose any future job/marriage/children to that god damned Diablo series.

Re:Goodbye savings account - SCII's multiplayer fe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20119563)

You know, no one is going to force you to play when/if Diablo III MMO comes out and ruin your life. Except you perhaps.

Re:Goodbye savings account - SCII's multiplayer fe (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20120805)

Oh that would suck, the good part about WC3 and so on and the reason I actually BOUGHT the title is that it's worth buying because it doesn't cost a fortune.

I really doubt sc2 would use subscription thought, it's not like it's a huge title with lots of updates, is it?

wow this sounds sweet! (1)

phildawg (1104325) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117155)

I love how this is sounding, so kinda RTS with a little RPG added. Sounds like a winner to me! this definitely just caused my pre-hype SC2 meter jump up a couple more notches.

RTS + RGP = Suckatude (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118141)

I love how this is sounding, so kinda RTS with a little RPG added.


Nah, I still think RTS + RGP = Suckatude.

I remember the silly "ghost" or "squad" missions from Starcraft and the increased emphasis on core units in WC3 missions (such as "march your Terran hero and his beasts through the shooting gallery" one). On all those missions, I kept hoping for a "skip the lame RPG-ish levels" option (other than the cheat codes, of course).

Thank god Blizzard still let you skip right past the cheesy cut-scenes.

Long story short - just gimme a good RTS and I'll be happy.

Re:RTS + RGP = Suckatude (1)

phildawg (1104325) | more than 6 years ago | (#20126577)

Well I think the RPG elements I was refering more to were the fact that you earn points to unlock units, and you have the choice on missions that are more for your type of challenge, etc. RPG that I was trying to infer was the more open the game is sounding. I agree with you on those WC3 and SC missions, like escorts and such. I like the idea of having a little more control of my destiny.

The Lost Vikings (5, Interesting)

tfcking (898871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117341)

If you look at the new Viking units info page down the bottom you will see blizzard labeled the picture "The Lost Vikings". Blizzard made a game called the Lost Vikings in 1992. Not sure how many people remember that game still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Vikings [wikipedia.org] ....That was a fun game :)

Re:The Lost Vikings (1)

nuintari (47926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20117807)

Great beer drinking game, I wish they would make games along those lines. Two player cooperative puzzle/action. It was a great idea that never attracted more than a cult following.

Re:The Lost Vikings (1)

Psykechan (255694) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118905)

For those Blizzards fans smart enough to stay away from WoW, I'll let you know that they also appear in the Uldaman dungeon as dwarves.

Baelog [wowwiki.com], Olaf [wowwiki.com], and Eric the Swift [wowwiki.com] are all in the game. If you are Alliance you can talk to them and if you are Horde you can kill them and loot interesting things like Olaf's shield that gives you the ability to slow your fall.

Re:The Lost Vikings (1)

soilheart (1081051) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119357)

Ah, I remebered that game. I loved it (because of the puzzles) and hated it (because if one died you had to restart)

Let's hope we get a Viking hero named Erik or Olav (or what the last one was named) in SC2 =)

The one thing that bugged me about Starcraft... (1)

Triv (181010) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118405)

I'm salivating just thinking about this game, but there's one thing about SC and SC:BW that I hope they fix: variable rotational speeds - a Marine should be able to turn around to shoot at something behind him much, much faster than a mechanized unit could. It always bothered me to see these gorgeously animated characters whose realism (okay, not realism. They're in space, after all. 'Fluidity of Movement,' then) was disrupted by a tank that could turn on a dime and start pounding you. It'd an odd thing for Blizzard to have missed as so many other little details were right, like light air forces being unable to hold perfectly still in flight and drifting a bit, sometimes into range of SAM launchers. That particular detail was amazing; the fact they were smart enough (if I remember correctly) for it to affect fighters and capital ships differently was especially cool.

Re:The one thing that bugged me about Starcraft... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20118733)

the article does mention the thor unit which takes significantly longer to turn around.

Re:The one thing that bugged me about Starcraft... (1)

BriggsBU (1138021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20126669)

The article talks about the Thor being slow to turn, so it was possible for a small, fast tank to drop in behind it and beat it down by constantly staying out of its line of fire. So in short, I think that they've got your concerns covered. :-)

Reavers? (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20119327)

I heard that they are removing reavers from the game. I liked these mechanical snails.
I hope they leave these for map editor.

YES! (1)

RealmRPGer (889362) | more than 6 years ago | (#20120669)

"some of the units from the first Starcraft that have been removed for the sequel have actually been built and will be available for modders to use."

HURRAY!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...