Starcraft 2
Posted by CompleteJust sayin
ARGH won't let me post urls. So:
Double uu's, starcraft2, dot com
Posted by BLUNTMASTER XI should be excited, but I'm RTS-saturated, what with Dawn of War, Age of Empires III, Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander.
Obligatory zerg rush kekekeke
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireNever really played the original, won't play this one. Though I'm sure a few gooks are excited.
Posted by ExoXileThat's just awesome.
It's too Warcraft 3 though, grapic-wise.
Would have wanted it to be more "serious" and less smooth.
Posted by XeroYAY! At long last! I've been waiting for this game since 2002 when I started playing SC 1. It took a while, but it looks awesome. The graphics look so much better.
I'm definitely getting it.
Posted by MottaTheHutt
Quoting ExoXile: That's just awesome.
It's too Warcraft 3 though, grapic-wise.
Would have wanted it to be more "serious" and less smooth.
I'm sure it will have the excessive ammounts of blood that the original Starcraft had.
Posted by Xero
Quoting GoldenMyr: I'm sure it will have the excessive ammounts of blood that the original Starcraft had.
Except the battle ground will be in 3D so you'll see blood going everywhere. SC 1 was in 2D. You could only see a spot of blood on your screen ;)
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireThere's like a 30 minute demo up at various sites. I watched like, five minutes before I realised I didn't give a **** and had no idea what was going on. Lots of blood though.
Posted by Xerohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyW7LfKlyrI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmmwi3lYCJg&mode=related&search=
Well this looks a lot like SC 1. I thought there would be more new buildings. I also thought that the old buildings would have new desings. The same goes for units. It only looks more realistic.
Posted by BLUNTMASTER X[quote=Xero;580241][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyW7LfKlyrI&mode=related&search=[/URL]
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmmwi3lYCJg&mode=related&search=[/URL]
Well this looks a lot like SC 1. I thought there would be more new buildings. I also thought that the old buildings would have new desings. The same goes for units. It only looks more realistic.
Neither of those are Starcraft 2 videos. Do you, uh, read the descriptions?
Posted by Xero0_0
No I didn't. I searched for SC 2. I figured I would get videos of the game.
I guess those were from SC Ghost. I would've known if I played the game -_-
Posted by BLUNTMASTER X[quote=Xero;580309]0_0
No I didn't. I searched for SC 2. I figured I would get videos of the game.
I guess those were from SC Ghost. I would've known if I played the game -_-
Starcraft Ghost never happened.
STRIKE TWO
Posted by GameMiestroThis announcement is infinitely awesome.
Christ, I think I'm just going to spend the next half hour watching all of those gameplay vids on IGN.
Posted by Xero
Quoting The X: Starcraft Ghost never happened.
STRIKE TWO
I just read the descriptions. Starkiller and Red system.
Sorry. That was dumb of me.
Posted by mufflai dno i really want to look forward to this game, but i cant help thinking that the great balance of the original was just a fluke, and they wont be able to re create it.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireHow long have they had to work on this game? Anyways, that's what patches are for.
Posted by Xero
Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: How long have they had to work on this game?
They were talking about SC ghost in 2004. They probably didn't start working on it then. So my guess would be almost 3 years.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireNah, I bet they've been working on it since a year or so after the release date of the original.
Posted by Xero8-9 years of work on a game?
That'd be the game they worked the most on ever since they started up 0_0
Posted by cool gamer dadomg I'm so excited.
Posted by Tiptoegecko
Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Though I'm sure a few gooks are excited.
Why do you think the announcement was made in Korea? It's like their ****ing national sport.
Quoting Xero: 8-9 years of work on a game?
That'd be the game they worked the most on ever since they started up 0_0
They were working on "StarCraft: Ghost", which didn't survive very long, but all I got to say about them working on it for almost 10 years is it better be the best ****ing game ever
Posted by cool gamer dadI am excited and everything, I just couldn't imagine myself playing with those graphics.
So ugly.
Posted by XeroYou don't like them? But they're 10 times better than the SC 1's!
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Why do you think the announcement was made in Korea? It's like their ****ing national sport.
Yeah... I know. Hence the gook statement.
Quoted post: So ugly.
WoW is one of the worst looking recent games I've ever seen and look at all the people playing that. They can't make it super nice otherwise all them slanties won't be able to afford it.
Posted by Xero
Quoting Tiptoegecko: Why do you think the announcement was made in Korea? It's like their ****ing national sport.
QTF XD
Quoting Vampiro V. Empire:
WoW is one of the worst looking recent games.
True. The design of the game wasn't at all impressive.
Posted by cool gamer dad
Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: WoW is one of the worst looking recent games I've ever seen and look at all the people playing that. They can't make it super nice otherwise all them slanties won't be able to afford it.
Making it look nice doesn't necessarily mean it needs a faster computer. SC:BW looks better.
... In my opinion, though. Most would probably say that the SC2 graphics look better. Sad. :(
Posted by muffla[IMG]http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070521.jpg[/IMG]
also i hope that they bring back the use map settings, some of those games were amazing
Posted by Xero
Quoting muffla: [IMG]http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070521.jpg[/IMG]
I lol'd at the "hard on" part :p:
Posted by cool gamer dadThe more I look at the graphics, the more I start to like them. Help me.\
Koreans don't play BGH btw
Posted by MomentumBlizzard has always been a gameplay/balance first, graphics second company. Never dazzled anyone with polygon count (I'm pretty sure they spend more time on their cutscene and promo videos than making their games look purdy), but some of the best balanced games ever that are actually fun to play. SC2 will be amazing.
Later
Posted by MottaTheHuttWow, the Protoss Mothership looks really cheap. It ****ing pwned everything.
Posted by cool gamer dadYeah, but now you can toggle as many units as you want with the drag, which benefits zerg. They'll all have something beastly.
Oh man, I've been getting back into starcraft lately, anyone that wants to play, leave drop your account name.
Posted by Xero
Quoting Stinger: Yeah, but now you can toggle as many units as you want with the drag, which benefits zerg. They'll all have something beastly.
Oh man, I've been getting back into starcraft lately, anyone that wants to play, leave drop your account name.
I cannot play on B.net until I buy my new laptop this summer. Everytime I try to get online on my dad's PC, it lags and I can't stop it. It didn't make it on his previous PC though. :(
Zergs are good because you can have a lot of units with them. They don't have creatures that use up a lot of space (supplies). You can mass better with them, but you have to be quick too.
I wonder if there will be more than 200 supplies in SC 2. That's make B.net games even more intense.
Posted by cool gamer dad
Quoting Xero: Zergs are good because you can have a lot of units with them. They don't have creatures that use up a lot of space (supplies). You can mass better with them, but you have to be quick too.
Used to have to be quick. Well, once it actually comes out. It's gonna be more of a strategy game rather than a speed game; it's completely different, and it's going to be fun.
Posted by Xero
Quoting Stinger: Used to have to be quick. Well, once it actually comes out. It's gonna be more of a strategy game rather than a speed game; it's completely different, and it's going to be fun.
As players will get good, it'll turn into a speed game as well. I'm pretty syre about that.
Posted by cool gamer dadThe point at which higher playing speed becomes useless will be much lower in SC2 than that of Brood War. You see, the main reason that you had to play quickly in BW (hotkeys and such) was because you could only toggle 12 units at a time, and to a much lesser extent, because of unit production (macro).
And seriously, Shuttles that double as Pylons, units that climb up edges... The possibilities are endless. It's going to be much more a strategy game than a speed game, guaranteed. Unless there's something Blizzard isn't telling us, it's pretty much 100%.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: The point at which higher playing speed becomes useless will be much lower in SC2 than that of Brood War. You see, the main reason that you had to play quickly in BW (hotkeys and such) was because you could only toggle 12 units at a time, and to a much lesser extent, because of unit production (macro).
Even I knew this and I don't even play the game.
Posted by Omni
Quoting Xero: 8-9 years of work on a game?
That'd be the game they worked the most on ever since they started up 0_0
Actually WarCraft 3 was supposedly coming soon for years and years before they released that. It's listed in every single one of those papers that come inside the CD cases of the Blizzard games I own.
Anyway, I might get this, but I haven't bothered to look at the site yet, so I'm not sure.
Posted by MottaTheHuttI think Starcraft 2 is going to be great, although there's not much to suggest how it will turn out. I like the new look. From the preview, it has Warcraft III graphics, while keeping Starcraft-style action.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: It's listed in every single one of those papers that come inside the CD cases of the Blizzard games I own.
So was Starcraft Ghost.
Posted by OmniI stopped buying games from them before they started marketing that one.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireI've never bought a game made by them :cookie: it was some other game that had a slip that said "Starcraft Ghost on Next-Gen consoles" in it. Not sure why, but whatever.
Posted by maianIt's a shame, really. Starcraft Ghost looked awesome. :(
...I thought so, anyway...
Posted by XeroIt did look awesome, but when it was announced, I started playing WC III and I loved the game so it didn't matter to me anymore.
Posted by cool gamer dadhttp://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc01.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc02.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc03.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc04.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc05.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc06.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc07.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc08.jpg
http://limitedgaming.com/files/18/PCGamer/sc09.jpg
Scans out of the August PC Gamer. Neat?
Posted by WillisGreenyIf they did nothing but improve the graphics, a million people would still buy it.
Posted by cool gamer dadBut this isn't the case, as we can see. I wouldn't be too upset if it was. Fancy graphics, more people play it.
Posted by WillisGreenyAny chance that this new Starcraft will be as well balanced as the old? I just hope they didn't **** up the game balance which usually happens to RTS games when design teams change hands, or get bigger.
Posted by S
Quoting WillisGreeny: Any chance that this new Starcraft will be as well balanced as the old? I just hope they didn't **** up the game balance which usually happens to RTS games when design teams change hands, or get bigger.
Blizzard is known for their balance in Strategy games. Let's hope they keep it that way this time around.
Posted by Al BorlandGenerally they're pretty good about balance in their games, and I have a feeling that's why they take so long to come out. I would've preferred Warcraft 4 to Starcraft 2, but I really can't complain. It's going to be awesome.
Posted by WillisGreenyI perferr Starcraft for sure. Warcraft has gotten their two sequals allready, and Starcraft people have been waiting quietly...most of us that is.
Posted by cool gamer dad
Quoting Al Borland: Generally they're pretty good about balance in their games, and I have a feeling that's why they take so long to come out. I would've preferred Warcraft 4 to Starcraft 2, but I really can't complain. It's going to be awesome.
For the most part. There are some pretty one-sided matchups in Warcraft, and to a lesser extent in Starcraft (Z > P).
Posted by S
Quoting Stinger: For the most part. There are some pretty one-sided matchups in Warcraft, and to a lesser extent in Starcraft (Z > P).
Not really. Any bias in that game was so minimal its pathetic. It was a very well-rounded game and relied totally on the player, unit deficiency was simply not an issue.
Posted by cool gamer dadI wish I had some actual statistics to back me up, but Undead has been noticeably the weakest in pro WCIII leagues, and Night Elf and Human almost always have the best showing. A lot of it has to do with the maps, which can be changed of course, so the units aren't the only problem. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for a win-percentage kind of graph for all of the races.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireOh gees, someone's arguing Blizzard with Stinger? Not good.
Posted by S
Quoting Stinger: I wish I had some actual statistics to back me up, but Undead has been noticeably the weakest in pro WCIII leagues, and Night Elf and Human almost always have the best showing. A lot of it has to do with the maps, which can be changed of course, so the units aren't the only problem. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for a win-percentage kind of graph for all of the races.
Actually, my fault for not clarifying. I meant Starcraft. I didn't touch WC3.
Posted by cool gamer dadoh yeah, they're all pretty balanced, except PvZ. Pro PvZ plays out a little differently, but if you're not a pro Protoss, Zerg is going to be a problem. The reason being is that with Protoss, you have less room for screw-ups, because obviously you're going to have far less units than the Zerg player. Also, only a select few of the Protoss units are actually effective against a decent Zerg. Namely Reavers, Zealots, Corsairs, and High Templars/Archons... all of which are expensive, or require a relatively high level of skill to control against a ton of units.
http://sc.gosugamers.net/news/kespa_ranking_july__savior_still_on_top
July KeSPA rankings if you're interested.
Posted by Al Borland
Quoting cats: I wish I had some actual statistics to back me up, but Undead has been noticeably the weakest in pro WCIII leagues, and Night Elf and Human almost always have the best showing. A lot of it has to do with the maps, which can be changed of course, so the units aren't the only problem. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for a win-percentage kind of graph for all of the races.
I'm not gonna argue with the lack of good UD users in pro leagues, but the other three races are used almost equally. Arguably the best player in the world, Grubby, uses Orc and beats just about everybody.
Posted by project101I cant wait for Sc2 and i have no doubt that blizzard will balance it out just as well as the first and im sure as the finished product comes together the graphics will improve slightly. I cant wait how much the strategy componet effects the online play I mean I realize it wont be based totally on speed but will rushers still be able to use thier favorite stratigies and wipe the floor with unprepared noobs or will they have to reinvent their gamming techniques
Posted by MottaTheHuttAppearantly the more kills one unit gets, the better that unit gets. Micro ftmfw, anyone?
Posted by cool gamer dadThat would be terrible. Let's turn Starcraft into a WCIII microfest!
Posted by MottaTheHuttYes, more strategy is a horrible thing!
Posted by Xero
Quoting cats: That would be terrible. Let's turn Starcraft into a WCIII microfest!
The thing I hated the most about Warcraft III is that you depend on your heroes too much. I could complete the whol 1 player campaign using my heroes only. It ruins the "war" purpose of the game if you don't have to use an army. The same happens a lot of battle.net. While playing games of 2 VS 2, some would simply send a few units, but the hero would do the main damages and then run away.
In Starcraft, we had heroes, but we couldn't bring them back. So we had to use them intelligently. Their spells were a little more limited and not so useful. Aside that Psionic Storm and the Yamato gun for Raynor, the rest was pretty useless. No healing spells. So most people wouldn't use their heroes such a Kerrigan as much because you had to focus on your attack but keeping an eye on a hero at the same time was hard. So I kept my hero for base defence.
All this to say that Stracraft II should not have heroes that become very strong. They should keep it the same way as in SC I.
Posted by MottaTheHuttThey won't have heroes in Starcraft. Starcraft is all about balance, and having different heroes can really throw off the balance of a game (see WCIII).
Also, heroes weren't in SC multiplayer?
Posted by Xero
Quoting MottaTheHutt:
Also, heroes weren't in SC multiplayer?
As far as I know, I played Starcraft 1 and Brood war and both had heroes, but like I said, they weren't powerful enough to destroy bases by themselves. Except maybe for the only mission where you have Edmond Duke in a BattleCruiser (SC I, Terran campaign, Mission 8).
But I'm not quite sure which game you're talking about in SC Multiplayer. If you're talking about B.net, then you probably mean some Use Map Settings games and everything's "fake" in those.
Posted by project101I really hope that sc2 doesnt have heros because it really wold throw off the balance part of the multiplayer and in sc1 campaign the heros were really weak and more in teh way then anything i dorta hated having to constantly make sure they werent dead or being attacked because they had no healing abilities
p.s. I was really dissapointed the star craft ghost was cancelled I was looking forward to that game and couldnt wait to get and upclose look at some of my favorite units
Posted by MottaTheHutt
Quoting Sucre: As far as I know, I played Starcraft 1 and Brood war and both had heroes, but like I said, they weren't powerful enough to destroy bases by themselves. Except maybe for the only mission where you have Edmond Duke in a BattleCruiser (SC I, Terran campaign, Mission 8).
But I'm not quite sure which game you're talking about in SC Multiplayer. If you're talking about B.net, then you probably mean some Use Map Settings games and everything's "fake" in those.
I'm talking about ladder matches. You know, real Starcraft.
Posted by XeroThe ladder matches? Well on battle.net, there aren't any heroes in ladder games as far as I know.
So you must be talking about the campaigns. So what I said in my previous post stands.
Or did I missunderstand you?
Posted by MottaTheHuttI wasn't actually asking a question. I know there aren't heroes. Arg, nevermind.
Posted by XeroWhere there was a question mark at the end of your post. Sorry!
Posted by MottaTheHuttThis was just a huge misunderstanding, cause by bad grammar. **** YOU ENGRISH.
I honestly don't care how the heroes turn out in the campaign. I'm buying this game for the multiplayer anyway.
Posted by cool gamer dad
Quoting MottaTheHutt: Yes, more strategy is a horrible thing!
micro /= Strategy
micro = speed and clicking skill
granted, it's an important aspect of the game. Starcraft has plenty of micro. But in addition it was an extremely macro intensive game, and on top of that you had to think about strategy. That is, what build orders will work best against your opponent's. When will it be safe to go for the expansion? etc.
I'm just worried it's going to turn into a game where micro is more important than macro, because that's just not Starcraft. Starcraft is intense multitasking between both unit control and production, with production and expansion being more important. Whereas if you have excellent micro in WCIII, you certainly have room to slack on the unit production.
Posted by Xero
Quoting cats:
I'm just worried it's going to turn into a game where micro is more important than macro, because that's just not Starcraft. Starcraft is intense multitasking between both unit control and production, with production and expansion being more important. Whereas if you have excellent micro in WCIII, you certainly have room to slack on the unit production.
Agreed. Starcraft requires more attention than in WC. In WC, units have a lot of HP and don't die so quickly. Doing micro stuff in WC III works better than in SC. In SC, units die faster and so you have to act faster. Plus you can make better massive attacks and you need more unit producing buildings in order to keep up. It's much more demanding than WC. I hope it remains this way.
Posted by David M. Awesome[COLOR=Navy]SC2 IS A LIE
SC2 IS A LIE
SC2 IS A LIE
There will never be another Starcraft until Warcraft stops selling games.
Also, that cinematic trailer blew ***.
[/COLOR]
Posted by MottaTheHutt
Quoting Mr. Awesome: [COLOR=Navy]SC2 IS A LIE
SC2 IS A LIE
SC2 IS A LIE
There will never be another Starcraft until Warcraft stops selling games.
Also, that cinematic trailer blew ***.
[/COLOR]
I tried to de-rep you, but I rep'd you too recently...
Anywho, the new unit EXP will encourage micro'ing. But not nearly as much as in WCIII. Mainly because in SC your food limit is much larger, meaning armies are much larger. Micro'ing will still be mostly pointless in SCII, just slightly more rewarding.
It'll still be worthless to micro zerglings, but I have a feeling micro'ing higher tier units (such as the new Protoss Mothership) will pay off.
Posted by WillisGreeny[url=http://www.starcraft2.com/] This website just screams amature hoax... [/url]
Starcraft didn't sell very well? what?
Posted by MottaTheHuttEven if Blizzard was lying about Starcraft II (why the **** would they?), after seeing all the hype it brought up (in Korea, anyway) they'd instantly start working on it. Koreans love their Starcraft.
Posted by WillisGreenyThe way they went at it was to allow micro be more important for specific scenarios, and macro more important for grand scale battles. I can see small maps with little resources as being the vessal inwhich micro battling becomes the bread and butter. Good move.
Posted by mufflai dno i just have a feeling in my gut that says starcraft 2 is gonna be a letdown. :(
P.S. huge army of fully upgraded hydralisks FTW
Posted by MottaTheHuttYou honestly think that? I can't see Blizzard letting us down like that. I think it will be at least as good as WCIII, if not better.
Posted by cool gamer dad
Quoting MottaTheHutt: Anywho, the new unit EXP will encourage micro'ing. But not nearly as much as in WCIII. Mainly because in SC your food limit is much larger, meaning armies are much larger. Micro'ing will still be mostly pointless in SCII, just slightly more rewarding.
It'll still be worthless to micro zerglings, but I have a feeling micro'ing higher tier units (such as the new Protoss Mothership) will pay off.
I never said micro was useless.
And wtf, zergling micro is some of the most important Zerg micro next to mutalisks.
Posted by XeroMost people rush with a massive attack of zerglings. They're fast and quick to make (also cheap) so it's a good way to rush.
But mustalisks? I don't see how that can be a rush. There are a couple of steps before being able to make some and they're rather expensive and longer to spawn. If I make a massive mutalisk attack, it's assited with my partner.
Posted by MottaTheHuttYeah, the whole point of zergling rush is you have massive numbers. So many zerglings it really isn't possible to effectively micro.
Zergling rush, kekekeke.
Posted by WillisGreenyAn all zergling rush tactic skill-wise from 1 to 5, (5 being the most skilled,) I rate around 2. To really use zerg requires knowing how to build up a mutalisk army while continually rushing with other units. Newbs take forever building up resource gathering, and players who just graduated newb college work too hard in trying to rush, especially with Zerg. I for one still play like a 2, but I've seen enough matches between pros to know the difference.
Posted by MottaTheHuttZergling rush is pure macro skill. You can't waste any time.
Posted by cool gamer dadYou have it backwards. Late-game is macro heavy, whereas early-game rushing involves significantly more microing. Therefore, a zergling rush would be mostly micro. You really don't have to pay much attention to unit production when you have only one hatchery. That's easy as hell, and there's almost no macro involved.
And Chris: that's my point exactly. You don't send in masses of mutalisks like you do other units because it's extremely important that you micro them, unless you're going mutas & lings.
Posted by Xero
Quoting cats: You have it backwards. Late-game is macro heavy, whereas early-game rushing involves significantly more microing. Therefore, a zergling rush would be mostly micro. You really don't have to pay much attention to unit production when you have only one hatchery. That's easy as hell, and there's almost no macro involved.
I'm not a rush person. I play very defensive. When I play in a micro map, I usually start focusing on an effective defence. It means that if my attack fails, I'll have something to back myself up in case they reply right away and start producing units again.
And no matter how little the space is, I usually try to have more than 1 hatchery. I usually go for 3 hatcheries simply because if I rush, I want to make zerglings real fast. Like have a fresh new batch of them within a minute. 3 hatcheries X 6 zerglings makes 18 zerglings in one wave of spawn. Pretty effective. But if you're against a rather big attack of zealots, then it probably won't work. That's where mutalisks become handy, because protosses in a micro map cannot have too many units. They use up a lot of space. So dragoons won't be their first choice. Only Dark Templars and Zealots will do best. But those can't attack air. So Mutalisks are usually better against protosses in a micro map. I know that you can rush a base of protoss with 1 hatchery no problem. Againsts comps, yes. But against real players, I doubt it would work.
But if you're against terrans, then yeah zerglings can do a good job if the speed of their movements is improved too. Otherwise I believe hydralisks would be better (with improved range).
If don't really have a good strategy against zergs in a micro map though. I would stick to zerglings, but zerglings against zerglings makes it pretty lame. I guess I'd just prepare the biggest attack I can make and go fight them. Probably air style. Guardians and Mutalisks. About 24 of each. But I need to have a solid defence to be able to achieve that amount of units.
Posted by David M. Awesome[COLOR=Navy]My favorite thing to do in that game was max out my population with mutalisks until they blotted out the sun and then send swarm after swarm of them to the enemy bases to rain horrible death upon their pathetic armies.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA
[/COLOR]
Posted by cool gamer dadThe rumor is that SC2's coming out on October 1.
Posted by XeroStill about 10 months of waiting?
****....
Posted by MottaTheHuttWhat did you expect?
Posted by WillisGreenyI'm glad. Longer the wait, more time Blizzard's QA has to make sure the game works great at first luanch. I hate it when computer games (Caesar IV for example,) get released with 1000s of easy-to-see bugs.
Posted by Xero
Quoting MottaTheHutt: What did you expect?
May 2008 or something around that.
Posted by MottaTheHuttlol u wish
Posted by XeroObviously...
Posted by David M. Awesome[quote=Chris;784946]May 2008 or something around that.
[COLOR=Navy]Yeah, that'd be nice. :/[/COLOR]
Posted by MoogsI've heard they were going for a release date just a few weeks before the WoW expansion. Which to me makes no sense. Or maybe I'm not seeing something
Posted by XeroWoW expansion? That's going to be much more popular than SC 2. Makes no sense at all. They usually have a big time gap between each game they make. I doubt they're really thinking of doing that.
Posted by WillisGreenyCapcom never released a Megaman Legends game the same time as Megaman X. Isn't that Buisness 101? Don't compete against yourself?
Posted by MoogsWell I know if I played WoW and all I had was 50 bucks, I would buy the expansion.
Posted by XeroI found WoW boring and very much like Maple Story. I'd prefer Starcraft II's new units, new missions and the battle.net.
Posted by WillisGreenyI'm tickeled though that WoW is having expansion packs. So it's like Guildwars + 15 bucks a month.
Posted by MottaTheHuttYeah, except WoW is fun.
Posted by cool gamer dadYeah, but SCII has an elite army of South Korean stealth soldiers and tactical geniuses backing it.
Against an army of nerdy white boys like myself. SCII win.
Posted by MoogsEh, I couldn't get into WoW...
The LAN Center I work at is full of WoW players though
Posted by cool gamer dadZerg revealed:
http://www.sclegacy.com/showthread.php?t=101
Posted by XeroWow! I really like they re-designed the units. And the overall game looks a bit more like Warcraft graphic-wise.
I'm glad this game will probably work on Mac. At least the newest WC games are compatible with this kind of PC. :)
Posted by cool gamer dadIt's looking alright! I'm gonna miss stacking my Mutalisks though. And the Zerglings sound like little squealing cockroaches.
Posted by WillisGreenyYou have to admit though, the Mutalisks was inevitably going to be nerfed by other units.
I'm really liking how fluid the action is when there's a **** load of units on the map. Lots and lots of movement.
Posted by mufflaI cant wait till it comes out, I wonder how much ram it will take
Posted by XeroProbably a lot.
Posted by mufflahas there been a release date hinted at? I seem to rember november from somwhere
Posted by cool gamer dadOctober/November is the rumor.
Posted by WillisGreenyI'm playing you first, Cats. Prepare to win valiantly this October.
Posted by XeroI challenge you both too. And you will probably win.
Posted by muffla4v4 nr15 fastest (squigly thing) possable map
Posted by cool gamer dadHey Willis, if you're a total SC geek like me you plan on picking it up at midnight then we're hecka playing our first few games together.
SHOULD BE FUN
Posted by WillisGreenyI'm sure there's tests and **** due the following morning...BUT I'LL BE THERE! I'm an RTS freak.
Posted by cool gamer dadhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAYnQwe-2jE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugZEHaOxzQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpiynuSqfs
Savior vs Hwasin, two SC pros playing around with a recent build of SC2. Pretty neato.
Posted by WillisGreenyStill no confirmed release date, correct?
Posted by cool gamer dadyeah, only speculation. probably gonna get a 'fo sho' release date at BlizzCon in October.
Posted by WillisGreenyI should probably look into buying some Blizzard Stock, considering Diable III and StarCraft II are fast approaching.
Posted by cool gamer dadI should ask my dad about it. He's been keeping an eye on that stock for a long time now.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireActiBlizzard = unstoppable
Posted by WillisGreenyAbout 23 a share, and on its low end of the cycle... INVEST INVEST INVEST!!
Posted by Xero
Quoting Iron Koala: I should probably look into buying some Blizzard Stock, considering Diable III and StarCraft II are fast approaching.
Seeing as I could play WC III on my MacBook, I suppose I'll be able to play those new games as well on my laptop, so I'm definitely gonna purchase both as soon as they come out. But it seems so faaaaaar away :(
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Seeing as I could play WC III on my MacBook, I suppose I'll be able to play those new games as well on my laptop, so I'm definitely gonna purchase both as soon as they come out. But it seems so faaaaaar away
Yeah. Both games already have a mac version announced as far as I'm aware.
Posted by WillisGreenyok guys, everyone buy stock before it goes back up for next quarter.
