Starcraft Remastered

Originally Posted by sakichop
Big fan of Warcraft games, Starcraft meh.

I was a big fan of WC 1&2, but I didn't care much for the 3rd game. I still think SC 1 is better though. SC 2 was a huge disappointment, or at least the campaign was.

Game was released today (14th August, 2017). Already downloading it here

EDIT: Rock Paper Shotgun news.

Post some impressions after you've tried it. I'd like to know what you think of it.

Yeah, please do. I think I'll give it a go on Thursday (no time until then) unless something or someone tells me it's rubbish.

Impressions? It's StarCraft in a higher resolution.

There you go.

@JDR13

I believe DArtagnan is correct here. I have yet to play the game but from what I could gather on internet, the remastered version plays the same as the original one.

The dialogues were re-recorded (maybe to enhance quality), there is the obvious graphic improvement but it still is the same story. Blizzard didn't change the gameplay or controls, and sprites are still 2D.

Because I don't consider myself good enough to play it in a competitive way, my main focus is to play the single player campaign, now 1080p instead of old 640x480

The remastered version does include the Brood War expansion, which is a plus for me since I never bought it/never played it.

I had some fun with this one back in the day, is it available from GoG or Steam?

I fear not, Carnifex. Both versions (original one and remastered) are available only on Battle.Net

The original version of Starcraft is FREE - called Starcraft Anthology. Much like the remastered version, it already does include Brood War expansion.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Impressions? It's StarCraft in a higher resolution.

There you go.

Well, yes, but is it worth the money, given that the old one is free? I've been skeptical since the announcement, but it's hard to tell how a game feels just from watching some screenshots or footage. The additional details and re-recorded audio might just improve the game enough for it to be worth spending money on, even if the gameplay is exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Well, yes, but is it worth the money, given that the old one is free? I've been skeptical since the announcement, but it's hard to tell how a game feels just from watching some screenshots or footage. The additional details and re-recorded audio might just improve the game enough for it to be worth spending money on, even if the gameplay is exactly the same.

It's worth the money if you want to play StarCraft in a higher resolution with no hassle. Probably even more so if you're a competitive player.

I mean, isn't it pretty straightforward?

They've made no changes to the gameplay AFAIK.

It's not like the original audio was bad. This is a Blizzard game.

Rumour is that you must be connected to the internet to use the high-resolution version; if you disconnect (i.e, laptop on a plane); then it reverts to low resolution of hte original.

Originally Posted by you
Rumour is that you must be connected to the internet to use the high-resolution version; if you disconnect (i.e, laptop on a plane); then it reverts to low resolution of hte original.

I would be surprised if you can play it at all offline.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
It's worth the money if you want to play StarCraft in a higher resolution with no hassle. Probably even more so if you're a competitive player.

I mean, isn't it pretty straightforward?

They've made no changes to the gameplay AFAIK.

It's not like the original audio was bad. This is a Blizzard game.

Right, but depending on how big the improvement is in terms of audio/visuals, it could very well impact how I feel while playing the game.

It looks worth it though, given how big the difference is:


That's more than some minor resolution improvement.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Right, but depending on how big the improvement is in terms of audio/visuals, it could very well impact how I feel while playing the game.

Well, I guess I don't actually need other people to tell me that a higher resolution for 2D graphics would be a significant improvement.

As for audio remastering, that would be a tiny, tiny factor in my own personal decision.

But, we're all different.

That's more than some minor resolution improvement.

Please don't create a strawman.

I never said anything whatsoever about the difference being minor in a visual sense. I said it was high resolution - meaning, it's high resolution.

When you go from 2D assets created for low resolutions to modern resolutions, that will always be a major improvement in a visual sense.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Please don't create a strawman.

I never said anything whatsoever about the difference being minor in a visual sense. I said it was high resolution - meaning, it's high resolution.

When you go from 2D assets created for low resolutions to modern resolutions, that will always be a major improvement in a visual sense.

I never claimed you said that. My own skeptisism was down to what I expected was just an improvement in resolution. If that gif is accurate, and I assume it is, they've polished the graphics a lot more than I initially expected. In fact, given the added level of detail, it looks like the models have been remade more than simply polished.

Originally Posted by Maylander
I never claimed you said that. My own skeptisism was down to what I expected was just an improvement in resolution. If that gif is accurate, and I assume it is, they've polished the graphics a lot more than I initially expected. In fact, given the added level of detail, it looks like the models have been remade more than simply polished.

I assumed this was common knowledge, based on all the hype.

They've made a big deal out of re-rendering (or partially recreating some of them, I suppose) assets in a higher resolution - rather than just scaling them.

That's it, though. No additional "polish" that I'm aware of in a visual sense.

Honestly, I knew exactly what it would look like.

Personally, I don't think it changes much at all about the game being ancient and something I used to play a lot - but that I've moved way, way past these days.

The only reason I'd get it would be to play it casually in multiplayer with friends for a few matches - but that experience wouldn't change much at all due to these changes.

In fact, I'd hardly notice them after a few hours.

IIRC, I only completed the Terran campaign. I never much cared for RTS in singleplayer.

Well, except Homeworld.

That GIF makes the improvement seem better than it actually is imo. I was just watching some new gameplay videos, and the difference doesn't seem that extreme when you're seeing the game in motion.

I still might pick it up because I think the price is fair. I was surprised Blizzard priced it where they did because I fully expected them to charge significantly more.

Originally Posted by JDR13
That GIF makes the improvement seem better than it actually is imo. I was just watching some new gameplay videos, and the difference doesn't seem that extreme when you're seeing the game in motion.

That's because the gif is of a zoomed-in view of the original StarCraft.

An obvious manipulation.

But there's no doubt that high-res assets will make a big difference in terms of the visual appeal.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
But there's no doubt that high-res assets will make a big difference in terms of the visual appeal.

I'd say that's highly dependant on individual perception. As I said, I recently watched it in action, and I wasn't impressed.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'd say that's highly dependant on individual perception. As I said, I recently watched it in action, and I wasn't impressed.

I didn't say it would make a difference in terms of wanting to play it - or being impressed by it.

Personally, I think it's a pathetic joke that a company like Blizzard are spending their time polishing up archaic out-of-date titles - and cancelling ambitious and extremely expensive games because they don't know what the hell they're doing.

I'm anything but impressed by this remaster.

However, I really don't think there's any way around the visual change being very distinct and significant. If you look at a low resolution version of the game versus this new modern and high resolution version - I would say the difference is positively massive.

It just doesn't really matter all that much to me. It's still the same old StarCraft that I stopped playing nearly 20 years ago - and I didn't stop playing it because it wasn't high resolution enough.

But, to each his own.