First of all, Blizzard completely changed the overall look of the Starcraft universe. I could barely recognize the three supposedly distinct races, they all blended together like Micheal Bay's Autobots & Decepticons, with the fancy new 3d graphics filling Megan Fox's role of eye candy.
Consider that the gameplay videos we've seen are at a reduced resolution - the game is clearly not meant to be played at 640x480, and upon looking at screenshots at full resolution, I'd say the distinctions are still very much intact - the Organic Organic, Techy Techy, and Organic-Techy themes between the races are clearly visible, and for the most part the silhouettes between the races is distinct. Have a look here:
http://s.sk-gaming.com/image/image/18c413faf854d375x.jpghttp://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/starcraft3.jpgWithout the distortion and grain of compression the units clearly read apart from one another, In texture, effects, form and color.
I am expecting a repeat of what happened when Warcraft 3 came out. Yeah, it looked all fancy with the 3d environments, but it was quick to lag and could barely handle battles larger than a skirmish (played it on several computers, not just macs, all had problems).
Warcraft 3 was released about 7 years ago. I think its safe to say that computers have, in 7 years, come to the point where they can handle the 3d elements. I played Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne again recently and the graphics settings were on maximum across the board, and I didn't run into very much, if any lag. I've also played Company of Heroes, which is pretty darn detailed and FX-ridden on both my Computer at work and my Laptop at home, and had few problems. I would be suprised if Blizzard didn't consider computers that arent top of the line, as the ratio of hardcore gamers to casual gamers is high, and to maximize profits, you'd want it to play smoothly on a humbler computer.
Looking at the screenshots I posted above, I think its clear that large battles are possible, as far as gameplay is concerned. The gameplay videos that have been released are clearly high level of play, and not "20 minute no-rush money map" games, so one woudln't expect 64 hydralisks vs 48 dragoons clashing. If you look at high-level Starcraft Classic play, its the same way.
And leaving out the LAN capabilities? Does Blizzard have any sense at all? I'm losing hope that it will be Mac compatible.
Blizzard has always developed games for both Mac and PC, and usually released both at the same time. I wouldn't worry about that. As far as the LAN is concerned, I'll agree thats a bit worrysome - Blizzard however doesn't completely ignore its fans and consumers, and hopefully if enough people sign the petition they'll get the hint. I can't imagine, from a programmers perspective, that setting up a LAN interaction can be that hard, and were they to release without, I feel like further updates would incorporate LAN capabilities. Blizzards reason for lack of LAN is mainly based around piracy, and Blizzard is a business, and not fools. Piracy is easy and can be costly to the company and its shareholders. LAN gaming could discourage sales, as the more casual player would be more likely to meet up with their buddies at a computer lab or with their laptop and play, instead of purchasing their own copies. Ever wonder why a great deal of newer console games have limited multiplayer capabilities, if any? It means more sales when the players need to purchase their own systems and copies of the game, and ultimately, as much as we'd like to think game developers want to make games for the sake of games, its really all about the money.
The new units and new capabilities may seem like a good idea, and could add more depth to the gameplay. Oh wait, then they include ridiculous features such as rocks that have hit points. Cool! And what is the point of having so many units when you barely get to use them?
I think the destructible rocks are a cool idea. They add a dynamic touch to the maps and limit the amount of turtling one could do - the environment becomes a lot more interactive and interesting, as they force characters to think about the battlefield in a more 3 dimensional way, instead of just finding a chokepoint and filling up with supply depots and siege tanks, one must consider the vulnerability of their base in a temopral way; in the late game, when the destruction of the rocks would be more likely to happen, instead of in the beginning.
Clearly multiple units and unit types add a variety of options to an experienced player. Working closely with game designers for the last year has taught me a lot about the intricacies of gameplay. Most of the elements that have been added to starcraft 2 are meant to broaden the spectrum of player skill differentiation. For example in Street Fighter 4, execution of button inputs and understanding timing is key, if you want to get particularly good at the game. One cannot do high-damage, multiple-hit combos by simply buttonmashing, particularly against a seasoned player. The result of this, and the ranking system online, is that when playing other players of equal rank, the game is more intense and fun, as the two players are on a more even playing field. When you find someone of even roughly equivalent skill, the amount of fun one gets out of playing the game is multiplied, and things become a lot more interesting.
The same appears to be true for Starcraft 2 - Multiple units types, as well as more complex maps, with destructible rocks and yellow high-yield crystals make for more options that a player has at his or her disposal, which allows for a wider spectrum of skill differentiation, and therefore clearer ranking.
But let's be realistic, Blizzard has never, and most likely never will, repeat the gem that was Starcraft.
I disagree. Starcraft is a game that is over 10 years old, and from it many RTS games have blossomed fourth, further perfecting and completing the ideas that it first put fourth. Blizzard has (with the exeception of warcraft 3, perhaps) an excellent track record of expansions to the IP's they've created. Comparing the changes from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3 and the changes of Starcraft to Starcraft 2, it would appear that for the most part they've learned their lessons. There are no Hero units in Starcraft 2, or Creeps, or non-player buildings that affect gameplay (with the exception of the xelnaga tower), and those three things were the most radical changes to the Warcraft gameplay that made warcraft 3 such a different, and somewhat disappointing game. The game designers have a lot of reference to look at as far as what works in a strategy game, and what doesn't, and considering the same basic team is developing this new game, I'd be very surprised if they did terribly.
In reality, that game was a fluke. The company has proven to be nothing more than a nuthouse of over-privileged, unimaginative nerds that simply stole, swapped or flat out copied hallmarks of science fiction movies to create a pimple faced, pasty white, overweight gaming geek's wet dream (I guess Koreans too).
Well ad-hominem attacks on the company sure make for a good argument.
When you look at just about every bit of Science Fiction entertainment, at this point things have become a big recycling of old stuff. This is the case with books, with television series, movies, and video games are no different. I'm not going to contest the fact that Starcraft took a good look at the Alien, Predator movies and the Warhammer universe and grabbed a whole bunch of stuff to use. What I will argue is that while some things have clearly been 'inspired' or even directly quoted, for the most part the game took the aesthetic and perhaps thematic ideas of those few things and expanded upon them until it became its own thing. Ultimately the things that do well in entertainment are things that are new and exciting, and sometimes that means a rethinking of an old idea, a new creative take on some idea another person had. Blizzard has a track record of producing multiple Triple-A titles, which usually means innovation and creativity, and that perhaps they are aware of the demographic that they are selling to is hardly something to fault them for. EA Sports certainly knows that street well - they clearly market their games like FIFA and Madden to the meat-headed jocks, and the balding, beer-bellied, fat, stat-junkies.
Just watch the Battle Reports. Already, you can hear the saliva foaming at the mouths of these two commentators, who feel that dictating a computer game is on par with watching a game in which real players have dedicated their entire lives to becoming superior athletes.
I've seen the Finals in MMA fights, I've seen the world Cup and the Superbowl, and I've also seen the Finals for Fighting Games, Real Time Strategy games and First Person Shooters. If you think that any one of the latter three somehow require less dedication and skill than the first three talk to Daigo Umehara, pretty much the #1 fighting game champion of the world, whose been at it for like 12 years. Talk to Justin Wong, the #1 American player for Street Fighter 4, who practices and plays 50 hours a week, or any of the professional videogamers in the various genres. The only difference between video games and sports are the repercussions to the body in the later years of life. One has horrible joint problems and arthritis, the other one has carpal tunnel and diabetes. One requires new shoes, pads, a uniform and an ambulance nearby, the other requires a computer or console, and an internet connection.
Additionally, the commentators are the game's
Designers. Of course they're excited about the game they've spent a year or two creating.
And finally, lets review the toll of what this Starcraft will ultimately take. It will no doubt have a heavy gravitational pull on the hearts of players of the first edition, and they will lose even more of their lives playing a completely predictable, pointless game. Then those veteran gamers will introduce it to the newbies, and more lives will be needlessly drained of ambition, intelligence, and sleep.
The exact same thing could be said about Soccer, Basketball, or any Sport. Games, wether they be played digitally, or in real life are ultimately pointless wastes of time. take a look at Final Fantasy, where you can play for literally hundreds of hours before beating the game. Talk about pathetic, where you spend a shitton of time killing small shit so you can get that limit break or something to beat the final boss by switching through menus of attacks.
That said, if you feel like you don't want to play the game, then don't.
