Starcraft 2 announced! [Archive]

Remus

May 19th, 2007, 13:46

Finally, Blizzard announced the sequel to Starcraft after so many years!. This is my biggest gaming news this year. W00t!

Official Site (http://http://www.starcraft2.com/)

Here's some news from Gamespy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790124p1.html):

Seoul, Korea -- The scene here is an absolute madhouse. I'm parked in the front row of Olympic Stadium in Seoul, Korea, and around me are thousands of screaming fans and press representatives from over 150 news outlets around the world. The setting is the Blizzard WorldWide invitational, and in addition to kicking off a weekend of competitions, Blizzard has just made the announcement fans around the world have waited nearly ten years to hear: Blizzard is resurrecting the revered StarCraft franchise with StarCraft 2.

While addressing the crowd, Blizzard President Mike Morhaim talked about the amazing support Korea has given StarCraft over the years, where the game is practically a national sport and pro players are treated like rock stars. "It was easy for us to decide where (this announcement) should take place," said Morhaime, before showing a short teaser video for StarCraft 2 and then turning over the stage to lead designer Dustin Browder (Command & Conquer and Battle For Middle Earth franchises) to show off game footage.

Surlent

May 19th, 2007, 14:20

Good news. It's kind of interesting they didn't decide to do another MMO. I wonder if Battle.net will still stay free without monthly charges?

zakhal

May 19th, 2007, 16:46

Starcraft 2 yey. I thought they actually had "somthing" to reveal.

bjon045

May 19th, 2007, 19:41

I hope they don't "improve" the graphics too much. The originals graphics are still considered satisfactory by most.

Ionstormsucks

May 19th, 2007, 20:15

Well, guess most people expected it. I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what to think of it. Somehow it's cool that they haven't forgotten the Starcraft universe, but who the hell needs another rts game? It would be nice to see something really new from Blizzard, not just stuff we know they are good at. Of course I'm biased being not a big rts fan...

@bjon045 Friend, an artwork trailer, a cinematic trailer, as well as several screenshots were already released so you can have a look yourself what the game will look like. Just google it, it's all over the net.

magerette

May 19th, 2007, 20:25

I agree ISS. Starcraft is a fun(and hard) RTS, but frankly, I'd rather see even a Diablo III. Theres a billion and one RTS games out there. At least it's a PC game, and at least it's not a sports MMO :)

I think they are pretty much at a standstill as far as creativity goes at Blizzard since Roper, et. al. left to form Flagship. They are still one of the great ones tho, and they certainly know what their fans like.

Role-Player

May 19th, 2007, 21:42

Ke ke ke zurg rush lol!

xSamhainx

May 20th, 2007, 02:32

It had to be an RTS, boys 'n girls. Ask the team that was working on Ghost all about it.

Just like the recent C&C, this title is old-school bloodline of grand-daddy mac-daddy RTS that is more than just another WWII or generic fantasy. That's why I hope (and pray) that it will rise above the everyday Build 'n Rush(copyright 2007) clone, and be worth the hype. I'm stoked purrsonally, I was starting to wonder if I was ever going to buy another RTS. I bet the party is just getting started in Seoul right now, it's prolly going to be declared a national holiday or something.

*gong rings out*
"We the Republic of Korea offically declare this the Year of the Zerg"

looks like we got some Protoss Previews (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/)

txa1265

May 20th, 2007, 04:59

I've never played the original, and am not too much into RTS ... but i thought this was announced in some way before?

JDR13

May 20th, 2007, 06:01

chamr

May 20th, 2007, 07:27

Are you kidding me? There's not a billion and one Diablo clones?

True.

The real question is if they do anything cool to advance the genre in some significant way (a la CoH or Kohan), or if they just put a pretty face on old tried and true.

Blizzard has made a killing on doing only a few modest things new, improving/polishing a lot on other folks' ideas, and delivering a high quality, highly serviced and heavily marketed product. They haven't really been in the innovation business yet. Will be interesting to see...

magerette

May 20th, 2007, 08:42

[QUOTE=magerette;29023]I agree ISS. Starcraft is a fun(and hard) RTS, but frankly, I'd rather see even a Diablo III. Theres a billion and one RTS games out there. At least it's a PC game, and at least it's not a sports MMO :)
QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? There's not a billion and one Diablo clones?

Yeah, but not good ones. :) Of all the "action rpg's" out there I can't name more than one or two that qualify both as bona fide Diablo clones AND games you would actually want to spend much time playing. I'd like to see if Blizzard could do a sequel and not a clone, JDR. No slam intended for those who like the genre--I'm just not much of an rts player.

But I'm sure they're making a lot of their bigtime fans in the Asian area and elsewhere happy with this one.

JDR13

May 20th, 2007, 10:32

Blizzard has made a killing on doing only a few modest things new, improving/polishing a lot on other folks' ideas, and delivering a high quality, highly serviced and heavily marketed product. They haven't really been in the innovation business yet. Will be interesting to see...

Um....you're joking right? The original Warcraft put RTS games on the map.

*Edit* I'm not trying to imply that Warcraft was the first modern RTS,(that was Dune) but it was the first really great one. It was also the first to use a fantasy setting.

JDR13

May 20th, 2007, 10:36

Ionstormsucks

May 20th, 2007, 13:09

[QUOTE=magerette;29052][QUOTE=JDR13;29042]

I'd like to see if Blizzard could do a sequel and not a clone, JDR. No slam intended for those who like the genre--I'm just not much of an rts player.
QUOTE]

I'm not sure how a sequel to a game they created could be considered a clone. Normally a "clone" is when a different studio makes a similar game in an attempt to cash in on the success of another company's idea.
A clone is an identical or at least very similar copy of something... so in the true, although metaphorical, sense of the word most sequels nowadays are also clones. And even if you do not consider them clones, it's pretty clear what Margerette means, isn't it?

Elwro

May 20th, 2007, 14:28

October release:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724

"Traditionally, Blizzard was always announcing titles years before they will come to life. My first touch with World of WarCraft happened on ECTS in 2001, first touch with Diablo II and its add-on came during E3 and ECTS 2000 and so on. But now, StarCraft II is not being announced year or two prior to release. Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of this year."

Arma

May 20th, 2007, 17:40

That is ridiculous. Blizz president Mike Morhaime said (as reported by gamespot) "We don't really have a budget; we'll spend as much time and resources as we need to make this game great." Translated this means they have tons of cash from WoW and decided to make SC2 and release it whenever.

Generally, I am flat out dissappointed. The screenshots show outdated graphics. There is zero new features announced so far apart from 3D (look above), several new units to the old factions and probably the new stroryline. The only thing that interests me so far is the last. SC2 so far looks like an expansion of the original with new graphics. Fans of the original deserve better than this for a 10 year wait just for an announcement, not to mention that it will be years before the game actually comes out - if it comes out this year I would be highly surprised.

Back to the things of interest - the new storyline. It would be good to see the return of Kerighan, but ... we hit a snag. Chris Metzen, the de facto person in charge of Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft lores, has shown that he is an idiot. He flat out messed up the entire Warcraft universe lore with the latest game released in the francize (WoW Burnign Crusade), and the horrors he can do StarCraft ... scare me.

Besides, most of the people that made the Blizz franchizes worth anyone's while have left. Especially Bill Roper, the person that introduced story to both Diablo and Warcraft. Not really sure about SC, but probably as well. Point is, current Blizz games are just shells of the original. SC2 is a good example of that - nothing new, but StarCraft sells.

Zocky

May 20th, 2007, 19:18

nothing new? --game was only announce yestarday. Can't you guys just wait for atleast more info before you start drawing any conlusion?

Squeek

May 20th, 2007, 19:42

SC2 so far looks like an expansion of the original with new graphics. Sometimes you hold your breath, hoping a good game doesn't get screwed up by "improvements" (Gothic3 may be an example of that, sad to say). I can't tell you how many times I wanted the next game in a series to be a straightforward continuation with without risky innovation.

magerette

May 20th, 2007, 20:31

That's a valid point Squeek--innovation isn't always good, in the spirit of "If it's not broke don't fix it"--but replication = continuation isn't much fun either.

I sincerely hope Blizzard will come through with a great sequel for Starcraft players. After thinking it over, really I think I'm glad this title isn't Diablo III. It's just too easy to make a crappy action rpg. And a crappy D3 would be much worse than none at all. People are already 'ashamed' enough to admit they played Diablo. :)

And I think I have a better chance of seeing at least Diablo's "spiritual successor"(uggh-excuse the over-worked cliche term) in Hellgate:London than I would in a current Blizzard attempt.

Maylander

May 20th, 2007, 20:37

JDR13

May 20th, 2007, 20:52

It's true that there are way too many RTS games out there, but how many of them are actually good? As someone who plays RTS games I can tell you that probably around 90% of them are garbage. StarCraft 2 will be a quality game that the genre needs.

And for those of you who are crying about things like "the graphics look outdated" or "there doesn't seem to be a lot of new units" why don't you calm down! Blizzard hasn't even revealed all of the units yet so what are you bitching about? As far as the graphics are concerned, what's the problem? They look to be on par with Supreme Commander or C&C 3. StarCraft isn't about graphics anyways, it's about gameplay. The first StarCraft didn't have the greatest graphics when it was released but it still blew away all the competing RTS games at the time.

Ionstormsucks

May 20th, 2007, 20:59

I don't mind if they don't change a winning formula. To me, Command & Conquer 3 is the best C&C game to be released for years, and that's because it actually used the exact same recipe Westwood used originally for C&C1.

I'm the kind of guy that don't mind playing games with winning recipes over and over. Gothic 4? Use Gothic 1 recipe with updated graphics and gameplay -> there you go, amazing game!

Blizzard made Warcraft 3 a very good game even though it was released years after WC2. I think they'll do the same with SC2, so I'm looking forward to it.

You somewhat indulge into a fallacy here. I may very well believe that you liked all these games, but the problem is that you cannot judge what you don't know. Of course you can say I liked C&C 3 because it worked exactely liked the prequels, but there is no way for you to know if you had not liked a C&C 3 with new features better...
The absence of innovation means stagnancy. And that means that some of the best games we saw in the past would have never been created if developers had not had the courage to try something new. That is also why the argument that innovation is always a risk is a very bad one really.

Thus said I have to admit that I have no idea what SC 2 will be like, I don't have any idea if it will have new features or not.

Maylander

May 21st, 2007, 01:16

It doesn't work exactly like the prequels, that's my whole point. It works exactly like the one with a winning recipe, which is C&C1, but with an extra faction, better controls and better graphics. Unlike Generals it didn't take only a single day to get through either, which is a plus.

Of course you need new elements, WC3 definetly had new stuff compared to WC2, but that means you spice up the recipe, not change it. There's a difference between making a clone and making a proper sequel - a clone would be identical, a sequel would have more of the same, but with sugar on top.

Remember, we're talking about sequels here, not completely new games. I'm all in for trying out new stuff, but in the middle of a game series is just not the right place for it. When you create a successful franchise, the fans want a certain something, and that's what you provide them. When you make a new series, such as Gothic back in the days, you need something that will make your particular game stand out, such as features the world has never seen before.

There's a difference between starting a new series, and continuing on an old one. In my opinion, developers should stick to the winning recipe which the series was based on when making sequels, but try something completely new when making new games. Clones are the result of something copying someone elses' game/series, a solid sequel is the result of a developer that manages to keep enough elements from the previous titles, but spice it up a bit.

What do people that cry for SC2 to be different than SC1 really want? New factions? New setting? There's only so many things you can do to alter the ways of a strategy game, and I honestly don't think the fans would be happy if Starcraft 2 suddenly came with different factions or a new setting. In fact, the original has reached such status by now you'd probably get a worldwide rebellion against Blizzard if they replaced one or more of the factions in Starcraft.

chamr

May 21st, 2007, 09:06

Um....you're joking right? The original Warcraft put RTS games on the map.

*Edit* I'm not trying to imply that Warcraft was the first modern RTS,(that was Dune) but it was the first really great one. It was also the first to use a fantasy setting.

Um, no, I'm not. Being the one to put the genre on the map (via sales, I assume, is how you define "on the map") does not mean it was innovative. In fact, it's exactly what I said: they took an existing set of ideas, polished them, added a sprinkle of minor new features, and then QA'ed the crap out of it. That's their model and it works well.

JDR13

May 21st, 2007, 09:26

Um, no, I'm not. Being the one to put the genre on the map (via sales, I assume, is how you define "on the map") does not mean it was innovative. In fact, it's exactly what I said: they took an existing set of ideas, polished them, added a sprinkle of minor new features, and then QA'ed the crap out of it. That's their model and it works well.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that Warcraft was a clone of ..........?

Warcraft was innovative, it was the first RTS game set in a fantasy universe with appropriate archtypes: Orcs, Demons, wizards, etc and the ability to cast spells.

It was also a gamble for the company, as they had no idea if it was going to sell well or not due to the fact that RTS wasn't even an established genre at that time.

Ionstormsucks

May 21st, 2007, 11:14

Remember, we're talking about sequels here, not completely new games. I'm all in for trying out new stuff, but in the middle of a game series is just not the right place for it. When you create a successful franchise, the fans want a certain something, and that's what you provide them. When you make a new series, such as Gothic back in the days, you need something that will make your particular game stand out, such as features the world has never seen before.

That would probably the more conservative solution. I guess you can do it like that. But as Blizzard themselves have shown you can also do it differently. World of Warcraft was completely different than the Warcraft RTS games... Blizzard did not try to make another sequel, but something new. I bet they disappointed a few RTS fans with their decision to do something different within the Warcraft universe, but they also made a lot of new fans.
Personally I'm all for trying something new, simply because there are so many RTS games out there... but really new stuff? Developers hardly try to cross genre boundaries today... or even try to mix different genres. Unfortunately for most game types there are no possibilities for developement within thier own genre.

Maylander

May 21st, 2007, 14:35

World of Warcraft is no sequel, Warcraft 4 is the Warcraft 3 sequel and it has not been announced yet. Same franchise does not mean it's a sequel. I strongly feel that sequels should have a certain amount of similar features to even be called a sequel - is the new Might & Magic *really* a Might & Magic game/sequel? In my opinin it's not. Not even close.

Ionstormsucks

May 21st, 2007, 18:21

World of Warcraft is no sequel, Warcraft 4 is the Warcraft 3 sequel and it has not been announced yet. Same franchise does not mean it's a sequel.
Yes, mate... that's what I'm talking about - doing something different. World of Warcraft was something completely different. Who said that Starcraft must have a sequel that sticks to the RTS genre? I mean we're not discussing the definition of the word "sequel" here, are we? We were pretty much posting the feelings that we have towards Starcraft 2. And in my opinion this world just does not need another RTS game. Still, I like the fact that Blizzard has not forgotten the Starcraft universe (I kinda liked SC1) - I just would have prefered if they had come up something a bit more innovative than a simple RTS game.

xSamhainx

May 21st, 2007, 21:52

nothing new? --game was only announce yestarday. Can't you guys just wait for atleast more info before you start drawing any conlusion?

Best post in the thread thus far imho. I truly lol'd ='.'=

Right on, Zocky

chamr

May 21st, 2007, 23:06

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that Warcraft was a clone of ..........?

Warcraft was innovative, it was the first RTS game set in a fantasy universe with appropriate archtypes: Orcs, Demons, wizards, etc and the ability to cast spells.

It was also a gamble for the company, as they had no idea if it was going to sell well or not due to the fact that RTS wasn't even an established genre at that time.

Don't confuse what I'm saying with the "clone/not clone" part of this thread. I never claimed Blizzard only spits out clones.

I think we just define "innovation" differently. I don't think of being the first to choose the clichéd high fantasy setting for an RTS and taking a financial risk on a burgeoning genre as innovative. The fantasy setting is an obvious choice, so bully to them for doing it first, but it was hardly a stroke of genius. Taking a financial risk on a new-ish style of product takes cojones, but it's not innovation in my book.

When I'm thinking of innovation in the context of an RTS, I'm thinking of ideas such as adding a Hero unit with it's own development path (WB) and the idea of a company of units with their own behavior AI acting as a coordinated group (Kohan).

JDR13

May 22nd, 2007, 07:14

I guess we do define it differently, if they were the first to do those things in that type of game then how could it not be innovative?

I also wouldn't consider a fantasy setting "clichéd" back in 1994. How many different settings are there to begin with that fit well into an RTS style of gaming? Not many. You basically have Sci Fi, Fantasy, Historic, or a combination of those.

chamr

May 24th, 2007, 22:40

BTW, I assume you've checked out the gameplay videos? Leave it to Blizzard to be able to keep a lid on this for 4 years and then reveal when they've got it mostly done. It looks fantastic! Don't know where the "not up to snuff" graphics comments come from. Those dudes jetpacking up the cliffs just rocked, IMO.

As an aside in our innovative/not-innovative squabble, a quote from one of the GS articles on SC2 here (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790195p2.html):

"This is, after all a company that's never pushed the envelope in terms of graphic wonders or "big idea" innovations. Blizzard's genius has always been in execution -- the way it gets all the small things just right."

:p

JDR13

May 24th, 2007, 22:57

Well good for GameSpy, however that is simply one mans opinion, not fact.

I'm confident that SC2 will be an incredible game, of course there will be doubters, but Blizzard is one of the few companies that consistently delivers quality products.

*Edit* He's saying they never "pushed the envelope" for "big idea innovations". I would agree with that. He's not saying they've never done anything innovative altogether.

chamr

May 25th, 2007, 07:04

*Edit* He's saying they never "pushed the envelope" for "big idea innovations". I would agree with that. He's not saying they've never done anything innovative altogether.

Ah, well, then we agree after all. :) I have no objection to your statement and didn't mean to imply the Blizzard never innovates in any manner at all vis a vis the dictionary definition of innovation = "something new". I was talking genre evolving innovations, not small detail improvements.

JDR13

May 25th, 2007, 08:06

I guess we agree to a point, however I still stand by the fact that the original WarCraft introduced a lot more than just "small detail improvements".

chamr

May 25th, 2007, 19:22

I guess we agree to a point, however I still stand by the fact that the original WarCraft introduced a lot more than just "small detail improvements".

Fair enough.

xSamhainx

May 25th, 2007, 19:36

Didnt WCIII bring "creeps" and hero units into the rts genre in a way? Those are two pretty big deals. I know some will say Kohan for the hero unit thing, but Kohan isnt necessarily an rts in the style of war/starcraft, age(s) of empires, rise of nations, empire earth, etc.

chamr

May 25th, 2007, 21:50

Hero units were pioneered by the Warlords Battlecry series. And creeps were a classic Blizzard-style improvement on the already existing feature of random, neutral advesaries lying in wait for your poor, unsuspecting settlers and troops that was around at least as early as AoE if not earlier.

Maylander

May 26th, 2007, 04:07

I think Kings Bounty back in 1990 was the first game where I saw proper heroes that had any effect on the outcome of a battle. These heroes were not units though, Warlords Battlecry had the first real "hero units", altho Age of Wonders was probably the first game with heroes that was a real "hit"(it was quite popular for a strategy game, but nowhere near games like Starcraft or Warcraft). Truth be told, Warcraft 3 is, by far, the most popular game with such units, so it's not strange that people think WC3 introduced them.

Blizzard is in no way the king of innovation, but they are kings of doing it right. They take their time to make sure things are properly balanced, the new features they use that are inspired by others, work well together with old features they kept from their own games. Most developers released games far more often than Blizzard, despite having less resources. Blizzard spends whatever time and money is needed to make sure every game they make is a smash hit, capable of winning new fans. Twice they've been well on their way on a project, only to cancel it because the quality just wasn't high enough (the Warcraft adventure game and Starcraft: Ghost). Most developers/publishers would force the game out anyway.

Do they do this because they care so much for their fans? Of course not, it's a marketing strategy. Blizzard has become known as a rather exclusive developer of high qualiy. Whether it's true or not means little; their reputation right now is rock solid. However, they can't risk releasing a game that feels rushed or is filled with bugs, as their moneymaking reputation would take a serious blow.

Personally I prefer their strategy to the classic EA-pour-it-out strategy, but you'll never see something as innovative as Gothic from Blizzard, which is a shame. They certainly have the resources to do something completely new, but I doubt they will - they simply don't have a reason.

JDR13

May 26th, 2007, 06:30

That is exactly why I'm confident that StarCraft 2 is going to be a great game.

curiously undead

May 26th, 2007, 10:04

blizzard is like chinese food. its not the best quality and too much is surely not healthy or wise, but hot damn most of the world can't help but enjoy it at some point in there life. that said i've played all of blizzards' games except the burning crusade and don't doubt starcraft will be fun, though not keeping my hopes up for it to match the amazing experience of the original.

JDR13

May 27th, 2007, 05:11

Quite the contrary, Blizzard games have always been top notch quality.

curiously undead

May 27th, 2007, 08:19

refined and polish to me are not enough to define the quality i seek these days. blizzard was my favourite dev for years but none of their games ever had any real depth which for me is something that takes gaming to a new level. i mean both warcraft adventures and ghost (even though console only) had the chance for them to make much more story/immersive games, but as fate would have it neither made the chopping block. my hunch is that those decisions have actually helped blizzard to keep making quality refined games but as with anything that is perfected it results in squeezing out wierdness and quirks that are usually key elements found in products that generate cult followings not just worldwide accolades and appeal. all in all though blizzard is a boon to gaming as it sets a bar (the easier one ) for what companies should strive for in many areas of quality. the other bar can't really be set but there are many games/devs who do add innovations that help to show what is possible.

JDR13

May 27th, 2007, 08:28

Sounds like you're looking for depth and something new("innovations"), but that shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for quality. There are plenty of games that have depth or innovations, yet lack quality.

Alrik Fassbauer

May 28th, 2007, 13:40

but none of their games ever had any real depth

I'm taking the position of a heretic here : The less depth, the better it sells ?

Polished they are, yes.

By the way, bought yesterday WarCraft II as an "Exclusive Edition" yesterday on a flea market. I guess it was some kind of what we call nowadays "Collector's Edition".

curiously undead

May 28th, 2007, 21:29

I'm taking the position of a heretic here : The less depth, the better it sells ?

Polished they are, yes.

By the way, bought yesterday WarCraft II as an "Exclusive Edition" yesterday on a flea market. I guess it was some kind of what we call nowadays "Collector's Edition".

it's not necessarily a collector's edition. alot of time special edition means it is actually more like an extended demo of the game. they used to that a lot more escpecially when games were packaged left and right with audio/vidoe cards. my copy of warcraft 1 was actually such a copy that i got with a soundblaster card in ~95. it had around 8 missions i think and was quite fun at the time.

Maylander

May 29th, 2007, 09:42

If you, or anyone else, can actually get Warcraft 2 running smoothly on a one of todays high end computers, let me know how. I've been trying to play this old classic for quite some time now, and I've managed to get to the point where the game itself runs well, but I can't get any sound effects/music, and playing Warcraft 2 without the top notch sound track just isn't the same.

Thaurin

May 31st, 2007, 00:25

So I take it you have tried all of the emulation (DOSBox) and virtualization (VMWare/Virtual PC) options? I bet it should run quite nicely with one or either of those.

Maylander

June 4th, 2007, 08:00

I have no problems running the game, but I never get any sound, regardless of emulator.

xSamhainx

July 14th, 2007, 06:24

nice interview with a designer @ E3 on Gamespot. Not a whole lot of new info or anything, but I enjoyed it. Go full screen and check it out-

E3 Starcraft Preview Interview thing (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/news.html?sid=6174202&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule%3Bpicks%3Btitle%3B8)

danutz_plusplus

July 31st, 2007, 09:22

I'm also excited about SC2. I loved SC1 and I like that Blizzard wants to make the second one similar to the first. My only quarrels with SC2 were the new model for the Siege Tank which looked really ugly imo. But now that I'm hearing it was remodeled, all is fine. I'm looking forward to the CG cinematics, with which Blizzard can do no wrong. I mean Blur.:D

Alrik Fassbauer

August 3rd, 2007, 20:57

Maybe I'll blur one day, too.

danutz_plusplus

August 4th, 2007, 09:32

With Blizzcon there is a lot of new information about SC2. It seems that between missions players will return to the main ship where they will be able to do different things(buy stuff, purchase upgrades, talk to NPCs, etc). This part of the game will be similar to an adventure game, featuring dialog trees. Here's a screen (http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/starcraft-ii-20070803003100366.jpg). It looks really impressive imo.
Alternative link (http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/822/starcraftii200708030031ja5.jpg).

The tech trees have also been displayed, for the terrans and protoss.
Protoss tech tree (http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/post-3-1186176815.jpg)
Terran tech tree (http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/post-3-1186176827.jpg)

And also some ingame footage. Looks really nice.
http://www.gameriot.com/news/4084/BlizzCon-Footage-StarCraft-2/
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/vids_1.html

Septim741

August 5th, 2007, 03:15

Read through the June? issue of PCGamer and it had a great deal of info on Starcraft II. Looking really nice. I never played the first one, but I played Warcraft, so I'm looking forward to experiencing the game through something other than the books, all of which I have read. ;)

danutz_plusplus

August 7th, 2007, 10:44

Wow, some cool videos of the storymode in SC2 have been released.
SC2 Storymode 1/4 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23196.html)
SC2 Storymode 2/4 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23202.html)
SC2 Storymode 3/4 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23206.html)
SC2 Storymode 4/4 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23208.html)

SC2 Story&Visuals Interview @ Blizzcon (http://gametrailers.com/player/23243.html)
Terran Walkthrough 1/2 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23212.html)
Terran Walkthrough 2/2 (http://gametrailers.com/player/23214.html)

Seems they want to give some new level to the basic gameplay that they had up until now.

Alrik Fassbauer

August 7th, 2007, 17:36

Now they call this "storymode" ? Interesting.

"Oh, I'm gonna play a storymode game now, Paps. The things you used to call an 'adventure game'."

txa1265

August 7th, 2007, 17:39

Thanks for the links ... cool looking stuff. Perhaps my aversion to RTS will have worn off again by then ;)

danutz_plusplus

March 11th, 2008, 08:01

The Zerg were unveiled.:D Gotta love those ultralisks and hydralisks (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/zerg/hydralisk.xml).:D

http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/20.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/35.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/22.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/23.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/24.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/25.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/26.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/27.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/28.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/29.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/30.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/31.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/32.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/33.jpg
http://blizzplanet.com/coppermine/albums/starcraft2/alpha-march-10/34.jpg

Low-res cam Trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/187045.html?playlist=featured
Full gameplay video(lowres cam): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoBnKa-e4E

Remus

March 14th, 2008, 15:20

Awesome Protoss units Demo - check up these devastating abilities of earth cracker and black hole attacks...

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31802.html

danutz_plusplus

March 14th, 2008, 16:09

Awesome Protoss units Demo - check up these devastating abilities of earth cracker and black hole attacks...

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31802.html

That's pretty old. Was released back when Starcraft 2 was unveiled at the WWI in Korea. But awesome nonetheless.:D

danutz_plusplus

August 19th, 2008, 16:03

Cool news. The graphics card requirement have been revealed (http://www.starcraftwire.net/articles/954/starcraft-2-graphics-requirements-confirmed).
For Starcraft II, we wanted to maximize compatibility with less capable systems to ensure hassle‐free game play for as broad a player base as possible. Yet we also wanted to utilize the full potential of any available hardware to ensure the game’s looks were competitive. This meant supporting a wide range of hardware, from ATI Radeon 9800/NVIDIA GeForce FX’s to the ATI Radeon HD 4800s and NVIDIA GeForce G200s

And some new screenshots from the singleplayer campaign. Looks sweet. I love the one with Raynor in some bar, with the juke-box in the background. :D Raynor looks like a bad-ass texas ranger. :D

Screen:
http://www.starcraftwire.net/gallery/data/501/9.JPG
http://www.starcraftwire.net/gallery/data/501/031.jpg
http://www.starcraftwire.net/gallery/data/501/3.JPG

Remus

August 21st, 2008, 14:13

Sound like AMD-ATI is sponsoring much of the graphics hardware during the StarCraft development. Anyway for Blizzard's games, as long as you have moderately new video cards then i am sure you could play their games at respectable settings.

Those screenshots look nice, they're taken from in-game cinematic i suppose?

Maylander

August 22nd, 2008, 16:00

Certainly looks like it. Probably from a cinematic between/before/after campaigns.

danutz_plusplus

April 17th, 2009, 16:42

The second Battle Report was released. Looks sweet (http://starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/2.xml). I love the zergs. But those hunter-seeker missiles that the Nighthawk launches seem unbalanced.

xSamhainx

April 18th, 2009, 01:35

more meh from me.... more I see of this game, the less that I want to play it. Which is good, last thing that i need is another game!

danutz_plusplus

April 18th, 2009, 07:11

Meh? :p

I guess I'm overly excited about the game. I was excited during the whole video, going back and forth in the video to watch character art and animation, explosion effects and the like. And that's just being excited by the graphics. I also can't wait to hear what voice-overs they'll do for units.

RivianWitch

April 18th, 2009, 10:57

I'm not even looking at Starcraft news anymore. One day I'll just walk into my local gaming store, and I'll see a banner or something with Starcraft 3 on it, saying that it's finally been released; but only if/when (if ever- at this rate) I have the disc in my hand, will I maybe allow myself to have any feelings about it.. :/

xSamhainx

April 19th, 2009, 03:13

Meh? :p

Yeah, you know, I'm looking at each thing that comes out and as usual I was kinda jazzed in the beginning - but by the end I'm like... eh? Looks like they slapped some better graphics and some destructable stuff on the old game. I want something new here, you know, I plugged thu a seeming eon of Starcraft before and while it had it's good times indeed (why i played it so long) I've been just expecting something really new, you know. Knock my socks off here, give me something that wows me. Instead it's the same races, same exact looking style of gameplay, same globs of troops marching to their deaths. Map even looks the same. The change between warcraft 2 to 3 is more what I was expecting, but I guess South Korea would probably go freakin ballistic (literally) and start lobbing missles if that was the case!

Sorry, it just looks freakin boring to me. Like I said, im relieved actually.

danutz_plusplus

April 19th, 2009, 08:01

Yeah, you know, I'm looking at each thing that comes out and as usual I was kinda jazzed in the beginning - but by the end I'm like... eh? Looks like they slapped some better graphics and some destructable stuff on the old game. I want something new here, you know, I plugged thu a seeming eon of Starcraft before and while it had it's good times indeed (why i played it so long) I've been just expecting something really new, you know. Knock my socks off here, give me something that wows me. Instead it's the same races, same exact looking style of gameplay, same globs of troops marching to their deaths. Map even looks the same. The change between warcraft 2 to 3 is more what I was expecting, but I guess South Korea would probably go freakin ballistic (literally) and start lobbing missles if that was the case!

Sorry, it just looks freakin boring to me. Like I said, im relieved actually.

Hmm, then I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the single-player campaign mechanics, which I think are really cool and interesting. That's the only place where they can afford to innovate and introduce new stuff. The multiplayer component has be very similar to SC1 because that's what most players want.

Concerning singleplayer, I love the adventure-style gameplay between missions where you move around different areas, talk to people and interact with stuff. Plus the light-rpg element of buying technology between missions and altering units/structures sounds interesting. And the branching mission tree. And from what I hear the Zerg campaign will be even more of an rpg, being able to choose how you evolve your Zerg brood, or something like that. And the Protoss campaign will feature something close to a diplomacy mechanic for it's campaign is what I hear.

RivianWitch

April 19th, 2009, 13:15

Hmm, then I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the single-player campaign mechanics, which I think are really cool and interesting. That's the only place where they can afford to innovate and introduce new stuff. The multiplayer component has be very similar to SC1 because that's what most players want.

Concerning singleplayer, I love the adventure-style gameplay between missions where you move around different areas, talk to people and interact with stuff. Plus the light-rpg element of buying technology between missions and altering units/structures sounds interesting. And the branching mission tree. And from what I hear the Zerg campaign will be even more of an rpg, being able to choose how you evolve your Zerg brood, or something like that. And the Protoss campaign will feature something close to a diplomacy mechanic for it's campaign is what I hear.

Hmm, well, that bit of info is certainly making my ears prick up a bit. I'm a loner, so I appreciate a good SP campaign. Sounds good!

txa1265

April 19th, 2009, 15:58

I have been enjoying some RTS lately , so I'll probably give this a go.

danutz_plusplus

May 6th, 2009, 21:33

People that have been waiting for the Starcraft 2 Beta have a reason to be happy. It seems it's getting closer and closer, and now people that have a Battle.net account, which you can get for free, can upload a system specs snapshot which will get them closer to having a chance at being invited for the Beta. Just log into your account and you'll find the 'Beta Profile Settings' where you can download a small app that will retrieve and send your system specs to Blizzard, and tie those specs to your Battle.net account.

More detailed information at starcraftwire.net (http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-2-beta-opt-ins-updated/).

woges

May 29th, 2009, 16:40

I spotted this article (http://www.gossipgamers.com/starcraft-2-details-fansite-summit-screens-and-more/) at Blue's News. (http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewstory&threadid=98680) Has some screens and info on load times (or lack of) etc.

danutz_plusplus

May 30th, 2009, 01:50

There's pretty much nothing more that I need to get more hyped about SC2. I'm at the peak of my hypeness. All I'm waiting for now is for the year to draw to a close so we can finally ride this bad-boy. :D

But the upcoming summer beta should quench some of my thirst. :)

danutz_plusplus

June 19th, 2009, 21:16

More Starcraft 2 goodness. The 3rd Battle Report and the best one yet imo. No HD version for streaming though.

Starcraft 2 Battle Report 3 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxRPspqkiPQ)
Starcraft 2 Battle Report 3 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewUmqiWntWE)

JDR13

June 23rd, 2009, 02:28

Too bad none of us were able to grab that Beta, I would liked to have heard some hands-on impressions from someone here.

danutz_plusplus

June 24th, 2009, 07:05

Too bad none of us were able to grab that Beta, I would liked to have heard some hands-on impressions from someone here.

You can still get invited for the beta. Blizzard said the invites go out in waves. I'm hoping for mine. :)

txa1265

June 24th, 2009, 13:43

You can still get invited for the beta. Blizzard said the invites go out in waves. I'm hoping for mine. :)

... then there is still hope ...

woges

June 29th, 2009, 19:13

Some news on this one at RPS. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/06/29/starcraft-ii-footage-strange-decisions/)

danutz_plusplus

July 27th, 2009, 08:34

Starcraft 2 'No LAN' Der Untergang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHA71B_wbXY). Funny. :D

Alrik Fassbauer

July 27th, 2009, 12:50

Uh, very ... hefty, so to say.

I saw it with sounds turned off, and was just reading the sub-titles. From thast perspective, it was done astonishingly impressive.

danutz_plusplus

July 27th, 2009, 13:04

Uh, very ... hefty, so to say.

I saw it with sounds turned off, and was just reading the sub-titles. From thast perspective, it was done astonishingly impressive.

Yeah, you have to not understand german or cut off the sound for maximum effect. :p

JDR13

July 27th, 2009, 22:18

That * was * funny! :rotfl:

JDR13

August 6th, 2009, 01:36

Blizzard makes statement on StarCraft II delay....

http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=27596

txa1265

August 6th, 2009, 01:51

Blizzard makes statement on StarCraft II delay....

http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=27596

not a surprise, really.

danutz_plusplus

August 6th, 2009, 06:03

Crap. Well, at least we'll have the Beta until it releases. C'mon Beta. Goddammit Blizzard, Release the Beast already!

Oh, well, this way I can give proper attention to the great games being released this Autumn.

danutz_plusplus

February 11th, 2010, 15:09

Awesome news. The Beta for SC2 was confirmed for this month. :D

JDR13

February 11th, 2010, 15:31

Awesome news. The Beta for SC2 was confirmed for this month. :D

I applied for the Beta but didn't get it. :-/

Do you know anyone that got accepted?

txa1265

February 11th, 2010, 15:37

I applied for the Beta but didn't get it. :-/

Do you know anyone that got accepted?

Not me either ...

wolfing

February 11th, 2010, 15:52

meh, RTS :)

danutz_plusplus

February 11th, 2010, 23:06

You only find out if you were accepted after it starts. That's when they start distributing beta keys. That is, if you didn't manage to get one from somewhere else (like going to Blizzcon).

JDR13

February 12th, 2010, 03:36

meh, RTS :)

No…..this is Starcraft! :)

You only find out if you were accepted after it starts. That's when they start distributing beta keys. That is, if you didn't manage to get one from somewhere else (like going to Blizzcon).

Really? Hmmm I better start checking my email. :fingerscrossed:

danutz_plusplus

February 12th, 2010, 06:01

Really? Hmmm I better start checking my email. :fingerscrossed:

Actually, the CM said they will probably start sending beta keys 1 or 2 days before it starts. So yeah, it's gonna be close to the launch of the beta, in a maximum of 2 weeks. :D God I can't wait, and hope I'm picked. :D

JDR13

February 12th, 2010, 06:12

Actually, the CM said they will probably start sending beta keys 1 or 2 days before it starts. So yeah, it's gonna be close to the launch of the beta, in a maximum of 2 weeks. :D God I can't wait, and hope I'm picked. :D

I'm pretty psyched as well, I just wish they were also including some single-player maps with it.

danutz_plusplus

February 12th, 2010, 09:07

I'm pretty psyched as well, I just wish they were also including some single-player maps with it.

No singleplayer content, but they will be releasing the Galaxy Editor later down the beta-line. :)

danutz_plusplus

February 17th, 2010, 23:49

Well, the Beta is live. Apparently. Though I'm hearing emails for the opt-in haven't been sent out yet. People that got beta keys from other sources are currently playing it online. I hope they send those keys out quickly. :D

Thrasher

February 18th, 2010, 00:26

How can you compete with ravenous fans in multiplayer?

Remus

February 18th, 2010, 00:58

You will quickly getting swarmed by rampaging zergs!

woges

February 18th, 2010, 01:22

"All beta invitations have been emailed, Blizzard said, so those of you hoping for a last-second message can stop refreshing your inbox."

Gamespy. (http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/1069962p1.html)

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/106/1069962/starcraftII_1266446880.jpg

txa1265

February 18th, 2010, 01:44

JDR13

February 18th, 2010, 03:01

Truth be told, I'm not sure how I would have even played it.

99% of my SC2 interest is in the single-player.

Remus

February 18th, 2010, 05:54

Today Blizzard confirmed that the confidentiality agreement for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty has been dropped. Beta testers are free to discuss the game openly, take screenshots and record gameplay videos.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/53150/Blizzard-Drops-StarCraft-II-Beta-Confidentiality-Live-Stream#comments

Good news!, now we'll see more detailed game-play footage and get other information.