2007-05-09, 09:12 | Link #61 | |
Bearly Legal
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
Well in any case, it's good to see a successful game like Starcraft gets a sequel. Whether it'll be any good is something we won't know till more informations becomes available.
__________________
|
|
2007-05-09, 09:33 | Link #63 |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
I was hoping Blizzard north would get working on Dibalo III after WOW But now it seems they will be conc their energies entirely on StarCraft ..... I am a bit dissapointed as my order of preference was Diablo StarCraft and Warcraft . Back as a kid Diablo was the first Blizzard game I ever played
__________________
|
2007-05-09, 10:06 | Link #64 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
|
There is no more Blizzard North. Majority of them quit Blizzard. If you're waiting for a game that's like Diablo, then you'll probably like Hellgate London when that comes out seeing how a lot of the people from Blizzard North (now Flagship Studios) are developing that game.
I do agree a MMO will never be perfectly balance but I felt that it wasn't that bad until they released TBC. |
2007-05-09, 15:01 | Link #66 |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 37
|
They completely messed up the balance between PVP and PVE.
actually, blizzard still adjusting the games with the stupid mistakes already there from beta i try to not be biased, but as a big example : the warrior got totally owned "pre TBC" and still get destroyed by train of nerfs, with the only composensation of Itemization (which is horribly stupid, and last for more than 2 years now) the amount of "instance nerfs" also show either of these 2 statements (it might be both): 1) Blizzard loves using clockwork encounters, to delay hardcore guilds progression 2) they just don't beta test their PVE events. (the very first version of C'thun is laughable) *sigh* still, the game is enjoyable, but blizzard doesn't really offer balanced game from the start, and needs helluva lot of time to do so (though they have LOTS to do, before giving a "slight" balance in WOW) *chills* enough of the wow rant ~~ back to SC2, i hope they won't screw the story, such like a cure for kerrigan -___-"
__________________
|
2007-05-09, 19:19 | Link #69 | |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-05-10, 04:38 | Link #75 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
I am not sure WC3 style heroes would work though. Quite simply, WC3 and SC are two different kinds of games because heroes was what any WC3 army revolved around, but SC grants far more flexibility in what units you can chose to win the game with. WC3 even attempts to penalise macroing by giving penalties for forming large armies.
WC3 is about mico only, with expensive and all-powerful hero units who need constant attention. SC is about both micro and macro. There is nothing wrong with either gaming concepts, but if Blizzard wants to make a genuine sequel to Starcraft, they had to be careful not to alter the playing-style the players are used to. Knowing what to keep and what to change is the key to making a sequel.
__________________
|
2007-05-10, 04:43 | Link #76 | |
Anime Snark
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 41
|
Quote:
Given that there were already Hero units in SC's campaigns, I am fairly sure that they will adopt the "Hero System" for SC2, IF there is a SC2. Cheers.
__________________
|
|
2007-05-10, 05:04 | Link #77 |
Bearly Legal
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Hero system kept WC3's popularity with player map like DOTA. I doubt that aspect would be discarded for SC2 assuming it's a RTS.
While there are folks who didn't like it, there are a greater number of people that's glued to game mode like hero siege/arena that centralized around hero units alone that extended WC3 popularity more than any other features had. Not only that, if you compare WC3 and SC, you noticed that units are generally tougher but takes more time/resource to produce. Warcraft 3 were moving away from macromanagement combat that many other RTS relies on. Interesting enough, many progamers of SC leagues relies heavily on microing their units, not much different from WC3. Just that, SC units are more dispensable while losing your heroes and your core force in WC3 means a big disadvantage that quickly lead to a defeat.
__________________
|
2007-05-10, 05:27 | Link #78 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
If WC3 players want more WC, they can wait for the next WC game, rather than demanding SC2 to change itself. I myself am a Diablo II fan, but you don't see me demanding SC2 get turned into an action RPG. On another point, I fail to see how WC3 heroes is the next big thing in RTS. Last I checked, WC3 doesn't have two Korean TV channels dedicated to it...
__________________
|
|
2007-05-10, 09:01 | Link #79 | |
MUDKIP MUD!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beside a road, next to a tree
|
Quote:
The way Blizzard killed WC3 melee was because of the small food pool allowed for each player on the field, thus lead to making maps like DOTA to make the game "fun" again, but I failed to see hopw it does. SC was all about melee, it allows you to be creative with your army and such since the food pool is so big. If they screw around with that and use WC3 system, they f***ed another ledgend over. I could be bias since I like to have some 4v4 melee battles instead of just using 1 units and it's "skills". Cystal castle 4v4 in SC = can't stop drooling
__________________
|
|
2007-05-10, 09:07 | Link #80 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
To Vallen..
I liked the heroes in single player.. but I didn't like them in multiplayer. Yes they are indespencible but having everything turn around 2 or so units is boooo-riing.. I personally would prefer if they adapted the hero system so it applies to all the units in a little way, and totally ditch super-hero units like those in W3. So that we can enjoy more then just 3 units with the others being less valuable then some stupid spell or even a healing potion. ------------------------------------------------- Concerning Diablo 3 Yeah, I think I would be a little more exited about Diablo 3 then SC2 but I think that it's too early for it.. and I hope that if Blizzard ever produced it, it won't just be some kind of stupid Sandbox MMO thing.. no matter how pritty. I want it to flesh out.. sitting in front of my computer and paying so I can go hunting bushes and collecting barries in a world ruled by apparently moron leaders is not really that appealling to me.
__________________
|
Tags |
blizzard, starcraft, windows |
|
|