|
On September 11 2004 15:49 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 15:39 radiaL wrote: there is one thing from warcraft3 that HAS to be implemented in SC:2.
alt+G. Yes. That just HAS to be implemented in SC2. And Abyss_Bahamut pretty much summed it up well.
Yesssss thank you, need to rally more people, otherwise they will take opinions from dumbasses spread around everywhere through the internet.
|
is awesome32251 Posts
PLease someone kill That w3 supporter OvjdsfjbFrio Sth kill him asap plz -.-
|
On September 11 2004 18:02 IntoTheWow wrote: PLease someone kill That w3 supporter OvjdsfjbFrio Sth kill him asap plz -.-
i second that, had i great hacking skills his internet connection would be dead for a loooong time..
on a related note nice to see all the tl.net people representing the true view of what we like to see in an eventual sequel. keep on preaching the good word highpriest Fakesteve
|
On September 11 2004 15:14 Frits wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 14:44 Ebenol wrote: On September 11 2004 13:20 SoleSteeler wrote: On September 11 2004 12:02 0wNaG3- wrote: I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro. you can't level a hero past level 5 from creeping, so he got to level 9 from killing your units =/ Wasn't that added in TFT? It sure was. :-)
sure was indeed
|
Starcraft is great now because it has evolved. It started great because it had A) Three cardinally different races, which was never before seen B) Balance which was never before seen C) Original graphical approach and a lot of variety
Starcraft is great now because of how its true variety ( not pseudo variety ) and balance allowed it to capture people's attention indefinitely and the game to evolve infinitely. It's impossible to make a game that will compare in greatness to SC off the bat. The game's experience and gamer-influenced changes after creation, the invention of micro, macro and tactics are its jewels.
If a game attempts to mimic the best parts of starcraft right now, and introduce improvements at the same time, it will sport a short user attention span
|
Dune II was actually the first game to incorporate 3 unique races in an RTS game. SC is the first to make it famous.
|
Not as unique I believe harvesters were the same and all races had similar tanks etc...
|
On September 11 2004 08:17 MiniRoman wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:52 Pob wrote: actually i really like the idea of experience , but only 1 level eg when a marine get 5 kills he becomes a 'veteran' and has 1+ attack or something , but not level 1,2,3,4,5 etc just veteran status Imagine how gay that would be for Z users where 3/4 of their units gets raped right away. Lings would automatically suck and then lurks would be super strong Basically anything with splash rapes. A temp could get to like lvl 1000 in 2 storms. I think the whole hero idea is alright. I could play a game wiht heros. What I hate the most about War3 soi that the units damage is like 20-25.
did you read my post? i said there is only 1 upgrade and that is to veteran status , there is no level 1000 temps or anything , havent you ever played the original command and conquer? sheez!
I have thought about this whole starcraft2 thing for a while , while not exactly the best comparison i know but imagine starcraft is warcraft 1 and starcraft 2 is warcraft 2 , that is the sort of improvement i would be happy with , atm i can think of nothing i liked more in warcraft 1 (ok except wolfriders) than in warcraft2
|
I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
|
the thing that makes warcraft 3 attractive is that god damn sexy icon thing and the tournaments in the bnet channel.... aww man, and also how there are no gay ppl that bot themselves/map hack and ruin the ladder.. in WC3 the ladder actually give u a rewarding feeling.
id be soo happy if blizzard could just make some patch that gave starcraft some sexy update with icons and level and stuff
|
On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
|
On September 12 2004 01:56 Chris307 wrote: Show nested quote +On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so). Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
|
On September 12 2004 01:56 Chris307 wrote: Show nested quote +On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so). Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
Well, the WC3 engine (note: ENGINE, not game) is the best 3D RTS engine ever made, and I have no faith in Blizzard managing to top that with anything they can come up with for SC2.
My fear is, they'll make one with a true 3D camera and true 3D movement, which alone is enough to horribly screw over the game (*cough*Ground Control II*cough*).
|
On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
|
Oh come on people, face the facts. It's 2004, there is no way they'll make another 2D game anymore. I have never seen a 3D RTS with a decent camera system besides War3, and if i had to choose between it and something "new" Blizzard might be coming up with, i'd choose the one i know does the job.
|
|
3D just for the sake of 3D is retarded. There is NO reason whatsoever in a RTS-game to have a 3D engine when the camera mode is fixed. Does it need to be said that all RTS-games with a moving POV are unplayable?
2D runs faster, looks MUCH better, it's much easier to spot differences between units etc. If SC2 is anything like WC3 I for one will NEVER play it. I tried WC3 for one game, and completely hated it because of how it looked and felt.
Much too slow, weird camera, units looked to similar (hard to distinguish them in battles)...
Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.
Oh and no more than 3 Races, hard counters as before, very little static defences and no such from start. Unit experience.. well maybe veteran status but no other than that. Absolutely no heroes or creeps.
|
wow, check out the thread fakesteve made. This ovarizo guy is the biggest ignorant moron i've seen online so far
|
On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote: Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.
It should be, but it won't be. Trust me. The fact that they're inquiring about true 3-dimensinal movement proves that the engine is 3D.
A company like Blizzard would not make a 2D game anymore, unless it was for GBA exclusively.
|
btw, all your points were valid fakesteve and indeed expressed the views of the majority. gw
<3
|
|
|
|