Pretty self-explanetory, I think the new graphics was what initially killed the game for me. Don't get me wrong though, I'm still gonna buy it! It's STARCRAFT for crying out loud! But I miss the old graphics and Starcraft's overall simplicity. The screen's gonna be too cluttered now....
(Thanks for the "universe implodes" quote EVWeb )

Starcraft II is going to be the best damn game ever (any game made by me or Ambrosia excluded) and any word against it will be punished by crushing.

I serious, gypsy

I notice a distinctly larger number of no answers than yes answers on your poll. Anyway, I voted for Starcraft surpassing the original. That I can play it at my native resolution is really all I need to know along with the fact that it has three campaigns.

Where's the "Wait until it's released" option?

Why would new graphics kill the "starcraft" mood?

But I vote what JTH said.

I hate how they rip off warhammer 40000 and go with the kid satisfying über big units shit. I will buy the game though and it will most likely be good.

And SC1 didn't take a page from WH40k (Space Marines, et al)? Of course, Warhammer stole ideas from a lot of other, pre-established sci-fi genres, and even from StarCraft after Blizzard *ahem* refined their ideas. Besides that, making things bigger is just logical progression, not necessarily innately native to another franchise.



The SC1 were simple because they were two-dimensional, and, in this day and age, Blizzard can't get away with that. SC2 has to be 3-D. Of course, the early 3-D models were simple, and, as a result, they appeared so plastic they looked like they were made by PlaySchool or Mattel. So, they improved the models, and made them more detailed. Just compare the 'new' Siege Tank, compared to the older, 'lip-stick' variant; the improvement is remarkable. For the models to get the same sort of vibe as the old, 2D sprites, they have to be more detailed, you see.

I will relent that combat has become a bit much like a light-show, however.

Meh

Yeah, your typical human space soldiers (terran), zombies (zerg), and near-magical ancient aliens (protoss) are nothing new if you boil them down to their most basic qualities. But Blizzard did a lot more with those cliche concepts, and saying that they copied from any one source, or whatever, is just absurd. Is every fantasy book a rip-off of Tolkien? Of course not. Influenced by? Sure. But complaining of outright copying is both short-sighted and ignorant.

For that matter, look at WarCraft as well. Blizzard certainly didn't come up with the idea for Orcs.

I really doubt it will "surpass" the original. A lot of people will probably have unrealistic expectations of it, thus sequels are rarely thought of as good as the originals.

I'm holding off judgement till I actually get to play it, but i'm not going to keep my fingers crossed.

For sure SC1 did that, that is no reason to continue though. At least not so obviously.

Why is making things bigger logical. It's logical to catch kids who love huge transformers like mechs. As far as story or evolution or anything else is concerned. Bigger is not more logical.

Indeed. And one could certainly argue that the first couple games in the series were very generic. But they made some strides with W3 in writing some more unique stories. We are ignoring WoW for pissing all over themselves, of course.



Well, the question wasn't about surpassing expectations, just its previous incarnation.

People are going to complain because it's too different and they're going to complain because it's too similar to SC1. They're also going to complain because it doesn't cure cancer, solve famine in Africa, or resolve the outstanding issue of a potential Palestinian state.

Also, the Viking is actually really interesting in terms of tactical potential and game dynamic- certainly as interesting, if not more so, than pseudo-deformable terrain or probabilistically determined hits/misses.

3-D, Multiplayer, no steak knives.


2 out of 3 ain't bad.

I'm mainly interested in the campaigns, which I'm sure will be interesting and immersing at the very least and ****ing awesome at best. I'm also looking forward to the inevitable swath of UMS games it will spawn, some of which I expect will be totally addictive and creative. So yeah, it would be nice if the graphics and the balance/gameplay were to live up to SC1's standards, but I have higher priorities for the game. And I'm sure they'll be satisfied just fine. =)

I will probably not buy it. I like Blizzard's gameplay ideas OK, but I really, really hate the art style, with such bulky, ugly units, and cartoony but not really charming buildings. I may get flamed for saying this, but I just like Ensemble and Relic better when it comes to strategy games (especially Ensemble, so I was a bit pissed when I heard that they were going to be doing an Xbox 360 only RTS. Seriously. Stop trying, it will only end in pain.)

I'm going to show restraint and abstain from making a disparaging million-shades-of-brown joke...

Too late

I would like to hear what you have to say about WarCraft 3 and its graphics.

1. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10
In short on the warhammer thing if you want to look at zerg and tyranid things get pretty cozy, but whatever. Both have great storylines and are well developed and going in their own directions. If jim raynor gets mortally wounded and surrvives in a golden throne, then i'll have some issues.

2. Hoping it will surpass. The key...is the balance. Plain and simple. Its the greatest aspect of the starcraft and the most remembered. You could play as anything and not get your ass kicked. I was introduced to WH40k by the Dawn of War rts and i rather like certain races. Sadly their either overpowered to the point of one strat wins or so underpoewred you need to grow an extra arm to win. The balance in starcraft really let people win through skill. Also it was openended. You could really do quite a lot of unique and interesting strats.

I happen to believe that StarCraft wasn't so greatly balanced. I have heard many people say that the Protoss overwhelm the Zerg early on in the game, and although I have not personally experienced this, I believe that a Zealot rush could crush any equal Zerg or Terran player within the first 10 minutes.

Also, in StarCraft II, I have heard the developers say more than a few times that their key ideas were to bring balance and even more uniqueness to the units than in the original StarCraft, and they are certainly succeeding in the "unique" category, which is something that I really don't like. The fact that there won't be any "equivalents" between the races tells me that everything will be a counter to pretty much everything else. I liked the fact that each race had both specialized units and generic, do-all units, such as the Dragoon, Hydralisk, and Goliath. I can't see StarCraft II being anything but micro at this point, with macro being pretty much impossible with the range of specialties that vary in these units.

Zerg is pretty much the "weak" race. Look at the really "top" players, and only Yellow plays zerg.

I hate micro.

Yes, but mineral for mineral, Protoss could destroy Zerg, especially early on in 3-Gateway Zealot rushes.

I voted for dinosaurs.

/played Starcraft once
//didn't really get into it
///dinosaurs rule

My personal experience tells me to disagree. Ten minutes is way too long for it to be a rush (in my eyes anyways). A Terran could have Firebats, Medics, and/or Vultures by then. A zerg player Hydras and Lurkers. You also have to consider that for every one Zealots a Protoss can get, a Terran can get two Marines and a Zerg four Zerglings for the same costs. Plus Terrans can focus fire and set-up chokes with Marines.

I meant 10 minutes at normal speed, not 10 minutes of Fastest. If we're going by fastest time, that's about 3 or 4 minutes.

Why normal speed?

Also, on certain maps with chokepoints (like LT), Protoss fast goon before Terran gets tanks is a lot more effective. Terran have repair + bunkers, Firebats, Vultures, etc; Zerg also have ways to deal with Zealot rush. Of course, if you're playing 3v3 BGH XPERTS ONLY!!! and get triple-teamed in the first few minutes of the game, things are different. But we don't need to go there.



That's a pretty big leap to make. How do we know that there are no generic units in SC2? (And don't bring up the website text or site movies; those things, like most computer game reviews, are targeted strictly towards the lowest denominator type of casual player.)

Because I'm to slow to play on fastest No, just because I like to kill my opponents a little more slowly.


That's basically what I mean.

I just remembered a difference between WC3 and SC. If they don't bring back the ban function to game lobbies, I'll be irritated. It was extremely annoying trying to keep irritating players out of your WC3 games while waiting on players since you couldn't ban them.

JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: OFVUISQFWOQNFIOWERQOFIQE
JimBob3843 was kicked.
JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: NOOBS NOOBS NOOBS!
JimBob3843 was kicked.
JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: LOL YOU GUYS SUCK
JimBob3843 was kicked.
JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: OGDFFHGDFGGHDFG4E5W
JimBob3843 was kicked.
JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: HA HA HA HA HA
JimBob3843 was kicked.
JimBob3843 joined the game.
JimBob3843: JOE SUCKS!
JimBob3843 was kicked.


Sheesh...

This doesn't mean that units are going to necessarily become specialists. The Marine is still going to be all-around good unit, with Medic backup, stimpacks, and its new shield upgrade. The Viking is unique, but it looks like it could be useful in many different roles, especially against dedicated anti-air or anti-ground units. The Nomad is pretty effing unique, but those several types of turrets it's going to be able to build could be useful for everything from worker raid to reinforcing your defenses.

While i think the races overlapped in some areas i don't think it was that much. For example the goliath really isn't much of an all rounder. Its ground damage was crap. It's key purpose was anti air where it could decimate air targets or defend your goliaths from them.

Starcraft 2 will probably not live up to the hype of being SC's supposed replacement. And there are several other complaints I have thought of but can't quite call to mind right now.

But I'll probably buy it anyway.