Starcraft 2 Battle Report

[Malacite]

StarCraft II


OMG, absolutely epic battle. I'm even more stoked for SC2 now ^ ^

[Omniblast]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

That was indeed pretty awesome. Damn the Terrans! Too bad he didn't kill off the SCV's in the beginning, but they had too many Marauders.

[Celeal]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

*add Starcraft II to my wish-list .... lol

[Tickmeoff]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

Interesting.

Looks fun, but this doesn't move it off of my "Why the fck are they trying to make me buy this game 3 times" list. Admittedly, it's not a very long list.

I will reserve judgment until I see how they implement it though.

[Balfree]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

One complaint...

... need lower quality Vid... taking ages to load, killing me slowly ; _ ;

[KingOfZeal]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

Despite the video is several months old, it's the first I saw of it.

I would have liked to see some of the bigger units available on both sides -- battlecruisers and carriers, and the phase prisim that the Protoss are getting... and who can say no to a mothership? Out of the scope of the match, no doubt, but it still would have been fun.

Well, that and the zerg popping up in the middle of the map saying "Ha ha! You're screwed! kekekeke"

[Malacite]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

They're releasing it 3 times so that we have 3 full, open-ended campaigns.

I agree it's a bitch move that was undoubtedly forced upon Blizzard by Activion's fuckhead of a CEO (He's worse than EA, he really is... hate this prick)


I'm likely going to end up buying all 3. I hate having to spend that kind of money, but the game just looks too damned epic.

Also, if you just want the multiplayer then buy 1 version since they are all complete releases in that regard. The only difference between them is what campaign is shipped on the disc. They'd better be very long and fun too.

[Caspian]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

Already on my must have list. It just moved up a little higher.
And now I know why I never played multiplayer. I'd have been done inside of 3 minutes. I prefer doing campaign and annihilating the computer with an absolutely overwhelming force.

[Feba]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

They're releasing it 3 times so that we have 3 full, open-ended campaigns.

funny. I've bought plenty of games with multiple storylines. And I bought them once!

[Caspian]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

My understanding was that instead of 3 campaigns of ~10 missions each, each game would be one campaign with something around 30 missions for that race. Making each one a complete game in and of itself. Thats how I thought it was explained. If it ends up being 10+ missions that you can completely beat in a little over 5 hours for $50, then yes, I'll be a little pissed.

[Karinya]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

It looks a lot like SC with snazzier graphics to me. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but anyone who was expecting a change as big as Warcraft 2 -> Warcraft 3 isn't going to get it, I think. Which is especially disappointing with the campaigns being released separately - I might just get the Zerg and forget the others (until/unless they wind up in the bargain bin for $19.99 or something), which is probably not the reaction they intended. (Actually, I'm not sure my computer can even run it. But if it can.)

This game was resolved surprisingly low on the tech tree considering both players had multiple expansions. Is that normal for SC2? I would have expected to see a SC1 protoss player pick up at least a couple of reavers or maybe psistorm facing that kind of infantry mob, and on the terran side, where were the tanks? (Unless the full tech trees weren't implemented yet or something, but then they could have put in a note to that effect in the commentary.) The highest tech unit to appear in a 20 minute game drenched in resources was an observer.

Having the finished game dominated by low-tech massing would not be a good thing - I hope this was an aberration and/or Blizzard is looking at the issue.


Needs more Zerg.

[Lmnop]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

Astute observation. I love and hate the original Starcraft. If the game continues to be dominated by fast-moving, low tech developed players, I'll become agitated quite quickly.

Warcraft 2 -> 3 changes were nifty and all, but I think Blizzard realized there are those of us who don't want to have to hunt creeps as soon as terranly possible in order to level up our heroes to have an overwhelming chance of success against a foe. If I had my level 4 hero and I thought my unit/development process was well underway, it didn't matter when I'd see the level 7 hero waltz in with half the force behind him. Starcraft 2 returning to the basics and just vastly improving upon them is what I'll be caring about. And more interface tricks to make micromanagement more plausible...

[KingOfZeal]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

It's also slightly possible the tech tree is being modified. I'm not saying observers are (or would be) very low on the tree, but I would certainly hope a colossus is higher than a small cloaked ship.

[Malacite]

Re: Starcraft 2 Battle Report

It looks a lot like SC with snazzier graphics to me. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but anyone who was expecting a change as big as Warcraft 2 -> Warcraft 3 isn't going to get it, I think.

Have you not seen the campaigns?

The battle elements are quite different too, and we've yet to see what if any changes they'll be making to Hero units.

I don't mind the low-tech fast games, as long as it's varied (i.e. best suited for a few maps instead of the general go-to strategy for all of them)

Plus, why didn't he use the Supply Depots to create walls?