They already have a melee attack for the lore stuff though.
Not sure I follow. In the lore they have a melee attack, yes. In the current build of the game, they also have a melee attack in addition to range?
I do not think so. I know roaches do.
Why is it important they have a melee attack "according to lore"??
Can't they just have a melee attack because they have big fucking scythe hands?
meh. I'm just going off the cinematics. They show hydralisks digging into the marines and such; this is awesome, and I'm always a fan of cinematics matching gameplay.
I seem to recall hearing that Hydralisks were originally going to be a melee unit in SC (classic). That could be why - a lot of those cinematics were done quite early in development (hence why most of them had nothing to do with the actual story).
I hesitate to do this last bit a little but I figure it can't hurt. If you would like to make a donation for all the hard work that I and all the kind people that help me run these tournaments (Sceptre, McSnuggles, Ryan, etc) you can give a donation to my paypal account [email protected] (any money given will most likely go to me buying food :P)
Why buy food?
Just
Spawn Morrrr Overlords!!!
Also... I'm already thinking about SC2 Release... should I forfeit all my placement matches to land in copper and proceed to silly goose all the n00bs?
So can anyone watch day9's recorded stuff on ustream without it stuttering like crazy? Or does anyone know where I can find 114 someplace else? I can't find it on blip.
This is a case where you can't really do much to "improve" the core game, so why try to turn the game into something it's not?
It'd be like picking up Halo 2 and saying "but it's the same game as halos 1! there's nothing new it's just an expansion!!"
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
This is a case where you can't really do much to "improve" the core game, so why try to turn the game into something it's not?
It'd be like picking up Halo 2 and saying "but it's the same game as halos 1! there's nothing new it's just an expansion!!"
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
if you don't think it is worth the price, then stop complaining and stop posting about it
this discussion has been had many times, sorry you weren't here to see it, but there is literally no point of arguing this
who's arguing it? I made my comment and people attacked it and called me a troll and elicited further commentary. If people didn't want to hear more they should have ignored it, instead of initiating a dialogue.
I never said anything regarding price or my willingness to buy it.
So can anyone watch day9's recorded stuff on ustream without it stuttering like crazy? Or does anyone know where I can find 114 someplace else? I can't find it on blip.
If you have adblocker running that causes that a lot.
who's arguing it? I made my comments and people attacked them and called me a troll and elicited further commentary. If people didn't want to hear more they should have ignored it, instead of starting a dialogue.
I never said anything regarding price or my willingness to buy it.
Be forgiving, there have been other people who brought this up with very silly arguments in the past. We've had this discussion both intelligently and stupidly several times in the past. People are a little less patient when it comes up again, since we've been through it already.
On another note, anyone want to practice with me a bit? I want to practice Terran some more...
This is a case where you can't really do much to "improve" the core game, so why try to turn the game into something it's not?
It'd be like picking up Halo 2 and saying "but it's the same game as halos 1! there's nothing new it's just an expansion!!"
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
What would you have done to improve the game?
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
I wouldn't have looked to improve the existing game, which was nearly perfect. It's just too long ago. I would have looked for ways to make a new game, in the spirit and setting of the last. Even the genre could be up for grabs (though some form of real-time strategy is probably desirable). You essentially described how the new game is full of new assets. That's like describing a remake. I was hoping moreso for a new game on the whole. The slider moved closer to "fewer elements similar" than "more elements similar".
Big changes are potentially dangerous, but then I guess I'm a person who appreciates risk taking. Playing it safe is historically the more boring and forgettable choice to make in many walks of art and life.
-not sure I have any more that needs to be said; though everyone should anticipate comments like this to keep appearing as more people play the game for the first time, and hold similar opinions. "it's been discussed before" - there's no reasonable expectation that everyone who could ever post on this board should have been a part of that discussion at only that time and never again.
just realize you are like, almost utterly alone on that opinion for any sort of major sequel
What the people want from a sequel and what they end up appreciating are probably very different things as well.
I think devs, being artists, usually side with my position, as more often than not big sequels many years apart are more different than SC and SC2 are.
So no, I don't think I'm almost utterly alone. Also, don't strip out the importance of time here. 12 year gaps and 2 year gaps produce different levels of change.
Deusfaux on
0
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
The work on unit pathing basically is all that sc2 needed to do for me over sc1. I mean, apparently there are still issues with things like ultralisks, but when I tested the unit pathing by having 12+scvs run down a ramp filled with ~15-20 idle marines (just in a bullshit game against the ai) and the scvs didn't slow down at all and ran down the ramp with the marines moving out of the way and back into place...
After constant disappointments in unit pathing in more recent rts games, that's the most important development I've seen in an rts in more than 10 years. All I want is my mans to do what I want them to do, dammit. That's far more important to me than silly arbitrary gimmicky game mechanics.
Sometimes when target attacking breakable rocks, units will take the longest path possible or get stuck on the base of a ramp because it wasn't explored yet.
Sometimes when target attacking breakable rocks, units will take the longest path possible or get stuck on the base of a ramp because it wasn't explored yet.
Granted, you can take my post with a grain of salt as I don't really have much experience and I really don't know the maps well enough to come across something like this.
I was just blown away by my little thing and how few other games could manage something so seemingly simple but important.
This is a case where you can't really do much to "improve" the core game, so why try to turn the game into something it's not?
It'd be like picking up Halo 2 and saying "but it's the same game as halos 1! there's nothing new it's just an expansion!!"
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
What would you have done to improve the game?
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
I definitely feel this is a case where adding new gameplay elements would definitely be a mistake. Warcraft got the heroes and stuff in 3, but Starcraft has a huge stake in staying Starcraft and just being an improved version of the first(or at least a just bit different), which is pretty much what it seems like people want.
Ewww, patch wont apply and it says I can solve it by uninstalling and reinstalling.
Since patch 9 or so I've had a problem using the blizzard updater... it crashes every time. So now I just use the mirrors that are on the official forums, drag the files into the Update folder, and re-run SC2 and it works fine.
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
I wouldn't have looked to improve the existing game, which was nearly perfect. It's just too long ago. I would have looked for ways to make a new game, in the spirit and setting of the last. Even the genre could be up for grabs (though some form of real-time strategy is probably desirable). You essentially described how the new game is full of new assets. That's like describing a remake. I was hoping moreso for a new game on the whole. The slider moved closer to "fewer elements similar" than "more elements similar".
Big changes are potentially dangerous, but then I guess I'm a person who appreciates risk taking. Playing it safe is historically the more boring and forgettable choice to make in many walks of art and life.
-not sure I have any more that needs to be said; though everyone should anticipate comments like this to keep appearing as more people play the game for the first time, and hold similar opinions. "it's been discussed before" - there's no reasonable expectation that everyone who could ever post on this board should have been a part of that discussion at only that time and never again.
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
This is a case where you can't really do much to "improve" the core game, so why try to turn the game into something it's not?
It'd be like picking up Halo 2 and saying "but it's the same game as halos 1! there's nothing new it's just an expansion!!"
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
What would you have done to improve the game?
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
I definitely feel this is a case where adding new gameplay elements would definitely be a mistake. Warcraft got the heroes and stuff in 3, but Starcraft has a huge stake in staying Starcraft and just being an improved version of the first(or at least a just bit different), which is pretty much what it seems like people want.
The only thing I'd like to see if a few more units for each side. For example, each side has two massives, rather than just one. I've been playing beta for only a few weeks (and maybe on average 15 hours a week), and am sort of already feel it's getting stale. SORT OF, this isn't something I really think about, but there could and should be a little more variety in game play, and they can do so by adding a few more viable units for each side.
And balance still remains a big issue IMO. If you the P in TvP, you are basically pigeon holed into getting sentries ASAP. Quick fix for that though: Give reaper fast speed to start, but make jumping researched in its place.
Oh and I still think MMM with vikings is pretty OP still too.
EDIT: My balance tangent pretty much highlights the game is great as is, to the point where I'm bickering about tactics.
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
I wouldn't have looked to improve the existing game, which was nearly perfect. It's just too long ago. I would have looked for ways to make a new game, in the spirit and setting of the last. Even the genre could be up for grabs (though some form of real-time strategy is probably desirable). You essentially described how the new game is full of new assets. That's like describing a remake. I was hoping moreso for a new game on the whole. The slider moved closer to "fewer elements similar" than "more elements similar".
Big changes are potentially dangerous, but then I guess I'm a person who appreciates risk taking. Playing it safe is historically the more boring and forgettable choice to make in many walks of art and life.
-not sure I have any more that needs to be said; though everyone should anticipate comments like this to keep appearing as more people play the game for the first time, and hold similar opinions. "it's been discussed before" - there's no reasonable expectation that everyone who could ever post on this board should have been a part of that discussion at only that time and never again.
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
Big changes are potentially dangerous, but then I guess I'm a person who appreciates risk taking. Playing it safe is historically the more boring and forgettable choice to make in many walks of art and life.
-not sure I have any more that needs to be said; though everyone should anticipate comments like this to keep appearing as more people play the game for the first time, and hold similar opinions. "it's been discussed before" - there's no reasonable expectation that everyone who could ever post on this board should have been a part of that discussion at only that time and never again.
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
Exactly, and to be fair Blizzard refines the standard game types into the most memorable and genre defining games even if they are "playing it safe".
The dungeon crawler, the RTS, and the MMO. Those are pretty much all blizz at this point.
I'm still waiting for my FPS though, I'm looking at you, GHOST!
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
Exactly,
Diablo
SC
WC3
WoW
the efforts that started Warcraft Adventures and SC Ghost
and possibly Diablo sequels (were I more familiar with 2 and what they're doing with 3)
are all bigger risk takers than SC2. That would be nearly every game the company has made since the late 90's.
Your observations about Blizzard are made with your heads in the mud. And even if they were on the mark, that doesn't take away criticism they should be more risky, at least with this game.
In what ways were SC, WC3, WoW and the Diablos risk takers?
Perhaps the closest thing to a risk was the skill tree in diablo2, other than that... i can't really think of anything.
Heroes? Those existed before, but not in multiplayer games.
Oh but thanks for saying my theories "suck" without really explaining why.
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
Exactly,
SC
WC3
WoW
and possibly Diablo games (were I more familiar with 2 and what they're doing with 3)
are all bigger risk takers than SC2. (not to mention the efforts that started Warcraft Adventures and SC Ghost)
Your observations about Blizzard suck. And even if they were on the mark, that doesn't take away criticism they should be more risky, at least with this game.
Why should they be more risky?
I don't understand where this is coming from. What they have shown us as SC2 is a great product, fun, competitive, all that. The single player looks to be amazing too. So why should they have been more risky? If they can make something that is top notch without taking too many risks, why should they potentially fuck it up?
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
Exactly,
SC
WC3
WoW
and possibly Diablo games (were I more familiar with 2 and what they're doing with 3)
are all bigger risk takers than SC2. (not to mention the efforts that started Warcraft Adventures and SC Ghost)
Your observations about Blizzard suck. And even if they were on the mark, that doesn't take away criticism they should be more risky, at least with this game.
Why should they be more risky?
I don't understand where this is coming from. What they have shown us as SC2 is a great product, fun, competitive, all that. The single player looks to be amazing too. So why should they have been more risky? If they can make something that is top notch without taking too many risks, why should they potentially fuck it up?
Because donald trump told me risk taking is the key to success.
Posts
I seem to recall hearing that Hydralisks were originally going to be a melee unit in SC (classic). That could be why - a lot of those cinematics were done quite early in development (hence why most of them had nothing to do with the actual story).
Mac only fix. Why PC's downloaded it? Probably just to keep version numbers in sync.
Why buy food?
Just
Also... I'm already thinking about SC2 Release... should I forfeit all my placement matches to land in copper and proceed to silly goose all the n00bs?
You know, that would be a pretty advanced game for its time.
Smite: Plutoniumwombat
A. Exactly. Why not?
B. But Halo 2 was 3 years after, appearing on the same hardware. There's a reasonable expectation the game will be similar in several regards. We're several generations past SC's release. Why doesn't the game look and feel that way at first knock? Here's a hint. The difference from WC2 to WC3. 6 or 7 years later looked and felt like it. Apparently from some comments here I'm not the only person to observe this?
if you don't think it is worth the price, then stop complaining and stop posting about it
this discussion has been had many times, sorry you weren't here to see it, but there is literally no point of arguing this
2 weeks before the fucking thing ends.
And while I'm on a dialup connection.
Thanks a lot Blizzard, you've made me cry.
I never said anything regarding price or my willingness to buy it.
2 weeks? the game comes out the end of july bud
sup thread title
If you have adblocker running that causes that a lot.
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
On another note, anyone want to practice with me a bit? I want to practice Terran some more...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
New graphics, new sounds, new units, new maps, new campaign and the control was virtually perfect to begin with. So where did they drop the ball? And please refrain from vague generalities.
Err, not right now I guess, I'm getting the "Invalid Version" error.
Edit: Fixed!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I wouldn't have looked to improve the existing game, which was nearly perfect. It's just too long ago. I would have looked for ways to make a new game, in the spirit and setting of the last. Even the genre could be up for grabs (though some form of real-time strategy is probably desirable). You essentially described how the new game is full of new assets. That's like describing a remake. I was hoping moreso for a new game on the whole. The slider moved closer to "fewer elements similar" than "more elements similar".
Big changes are potentially dangerous, but then I guess I'm a person who appreciates risk taking. Playing it safe is historically the more boring and forgettable choice to make in many walks of art and life.
-not sure I have any more that needs to be said; though everyone should anticipate comments like this to keep appearing as more people play the game for the first time, and hold similar opinions. "it's been discussed before" - there's no reasonable expectation that everyone who could ever post on this board should have been a part of that discussion at only that time and never again.
just realize you are like, almost utterly alone on that opinion for any sort of major sequel
e: word choice
What the people want from a sequel and what they end up appreciating are probably very different things as well.
I think devs, being artists, usually side with my position, as more often than not big sequels many years apart are more different than SC and SC2 are.
So no, I don't think I'm almost utterly alone. Also, don't strip out the importance of time here. 12 year gaps and 2 year gaps produce different levels of change.
After constant disappointments in unit pathing in more recent rts games, that's the most important development I've seen in an rts in more than 10 years. All I want is my mans to do what I want them to do, dammit. That's far more important to me than silly arbitrary gimmicky game mechanics.
Granted, you can take my post with a grain of salt as I don't really have much experience and I really don't know the maps well enough to come across something like this.
I was just blown away by my little thing and how few other games could manage something so seemingly simple but important.
I definitely feel this is a case where adding new gameplay elements would definitely be a mistake. Warcraft got the heroes and stuff in 3, but Starcraft has a huge stake in staying Starcraft and just being an improved version of the first(or at least a just bit different), which is pretty much what it seems like people want.
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
Since patch 9 or so I've had a problem using the blizzard updater... it crashes every time. So now I just use the mirrors that are on the official forums, drag the files into the Update folder, and re-run SC2 and it works fine.
This is Blizzard we're talking about here. They don't take risks, they refine.
The only thing I'd like to see if a few more units for each side. For example, each side has two massives, rather than just one. I've been playing beta for only a few weeks (and maybe on average 15 hours a week), and am sort of already feel it's getting stale. SORT OF, this isn't something I really think about, but there could and should be a little more variety in game play, and they can do so by adding a few more viable units for each side.
And balance still remains a big issue IMO. If you the P in TvP, you are basically pigeon holed into getting sentries ASAP. Quick fix for that though: Give reaper fast speed to start, but make jumping researched in its place.
Oh and I still think MMM with vikings is pretty OP still too.
EDIT: My balance tangent pretty much highlights the game is great as is, to the point where I'm bickering about tactics.
DoW2 and Supcom 2.
Innovation is bad.
Exactly, and to be fair Blizzard refines the standard game types into the most memorable and genre defining games even if they are "playing it safe".
The dungeon crawler, the RTS, and the MMO. Those are pretty much all blizz at this point.
I'm still waiting for my FPS though, I'm looking at you, GHOST!
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
Diablo
SC
WC3
WoW
the efforts that started Warcraft Adventures and SC Ghost
and possibly Diablo sequels (were I more familiar with 2 and what they're doing with 3)
are all bigger risk takers than SC2. That would be nearly every game the company has made since the late 90's.
Your observations about Blizzard are made with your heads in the mud. And even if they were on the mark, that doesn't take away criticism they should be more risky, at least with this game.
Perhaps the closest thing to a risk was the skill tree in diablo2, other than that... i can't really think of anything.
Heroes? Those existed before, but not in multiplayer games.
Oh but thanks for saying my theories "suck" without really explaining why.
Why should they be more risky?
I don't understand where this is coming from. What they have shown us as SC2 is a great product, fun, competitive, all that. The single player looks to be amazing too. So why should they have been more risky? If they can make something that is top notch without taking too many risks, why should they potentially fuck it up?
Because donald trump told me risk taking is the key to success.
fuck that. they're a company, people like what they make, why do anything different.