Personally, I think it's way too early to assume things about the game play. There's definitely not enough released about it yet.

If by cover system you're talking about units being able to attack from behind cover-- blizzard did say there's a physics engine in the game, so the environment is going to react. That leads me to think it's very likely a cover system will be used.

What do you mean by melee combat system?

I don't think SC2 will have a morale system because there's so much micro-management involved already and it just doesn't seem like a "starcraft" thing to do, to me. Again though, it's still way too early to assume things about the game play.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by infantry squad system either. Grouping units together? Because even the original Starcraft did that. So I'm guessing you mean something else here.

I'm also surprised you would say the graphics look like a Warcraft3 mod. I think the graphics are amazing.

Melee combat system; ranged units engaged in melee don't stand there firing at point blank range. Instead, they fight hand to hand. Most games that use a system like this have ranged units do far less damage in melee than they do at range, but it's not absolutely necessary and can just be a way of making the game look more fluffy. Without one you end up with a game like WarCraft 3 where ranged units just stand there and keep shooting at people while they're in melee, which just looks awkward and ugly.

As for a squad system, almost all RTS games have moved on from the "one unit is one man" theme of the mid-90's. Even in C&C3, when you build an infantry unit you get a squad of guys, not just one.

one thing though you need to remember is that its still very early. From one of their videos the guy who is presenting the "demo" said they still had alot of work to do

It's a Blizzard game, we've probably got at least 2 years before this thing hits shelves, so really we can't assume anything about the game that they haven't specifically come out and told us.

Starcraft has a very loyal, large and, in many cases, moronic fan base. It's an RTS that eschews many of the more advanced features in favor of being enjoyable. That's really been Blizzard's MO from the beginning. As games continue to become more complicated, Blizzard keeps theirs to a particular format. As such, it's a more welcome sight to casual gamers but still enough to lure the hard core gamers.

The graphics I've seen have been lackluster so far, but it's too early to start judging what the end result will be. The programmers probably have at least a year to code more impressive graphics, from what I understand the gameplay mechanics are already finished. Apparently it's already running a pre-alpha multiplayer.

I agree. Blizzard focusses on their games enjoyable to both the casual and the hard-core gamer. I honestly don't think that a game being fun is a bad thing. I know some hard-core gamers like to feel as if they're "working" when they play, and as if it takes real effort and skill to get to the top, but . . . eh, the rest of us save that for our real jobs. :P

I know this may come across as sarcastic, but I don't mean it to do so.

I dunno about the moronic fan base... SC doesn't have a lot of the convenience benefits found in other RTS games. It requires a lot more multi-tasking, microing of units, and stamina. At least this is what the ones who study and practice the game emphasize (see Team Liquid forums for the serious SC gamers side).

I agree with most of the responses here on the "too early" part. It will probably take another two years until this game hits the shelves, and even then it will probably be another few patches before it's balanced.

sometimes simple is just more fun, tbh none of the newer rts's have really been anywhere near as fun to play as the original sc and similar games, actually wish they would go back in time with a lot of other genres aswell, bring the fun back instead of complexity and flashy graphics, but, to each there own I guess.

however, the additions to sc2 will change the way it plays quite a bit, just in what tactics can be used and what ingenious stratergies people come up with.

I agree. As much as I like complex games, it sometimes feels as if becoming proficient in many modern RTSs involves hours of hard study and work and thought. Even when you know how to play them, they involve so much complex, sustained micromanagement that they cease to be fun. I sometimes just want to be able to pick up a game, learn the basic keyset and kill me some Protoss. :P

My attitude is that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. StarCraft's gameplay was incredibly fun to the point where people are still playing it many years later. I'm not convinced that its gameplay does need a major overhaul, and that Blizzard automatically needs to follow in the footsteps of all its competitors by introducing innovations that complicate the gameplay in the name of realism. Newer is not always better and more fun.

That said, I'm pretty sure that you will see some of those innovations built into the game. StarCraft always had a primitive cover system in that the environment impacted your troops' effectiveness; trees did shelter you a little, and having the high-ground did give you an advantage. It also had a primitive squad system. Warcraft III introduced morale to a limited degree in the form of heroes, who could gain experience as they killed and become more effective; they may extend that to the other units.

It's early days too. They have not released much information about the game at all, except to say that it'll have some continuity with the original game in terms of gameplay and thus make their existing fanbase happy, which is very smart. Plus, initial graphics are always primitive and fairly ugly.

iawtc

I love how people are flying off the handle. We've seen one new terran unit, one new zerg unit, four new protoss units, one new protoss building, and a few new protoss mechanics.

I have absolutely no fear whatsoever. We have seen very, very, very little of this game. Judging from what we have, they've already introduced elements that will shake up the Blizzard RTS experience. It will be amazing. That is all.

It will be amazing. That is all.

See, that's the attitude that I think is destroying the gaming industry; that's why Final Fantasy has sucked since VI. People see a big name and say "oh it will definitely be awesome," then they repeat that to themselves so much that even if it's awful, they stick to their line.

I definitely see your point, and I've complained about the same thing myself. But--Starcraft. I'm really only buying this game, assuming it doesn't completely suck, so that I can play against my friends, and we can have late-night tourneys again. :)

The thing you have to understand about Starcraft 1 is it is the most ballanced and easy to pick up RTS games in existance. You dont have to worry about troop formations and moral boosts and all that fun stuff. I agree it makes for a deeper game but Starcraft is more of a tourney game were matches last between 5 and 30 minutes tops. To add all the other stuff that makes AOE, CIV, and other games good will take away what makes Starcraft good. You have to remember Starcraft has been out for like 10-15 years and still has a HUGE following (especialy in Korea). People who play Starcraft today COULD be playing any of the other awsome and deep RTS's out there. But there is a reason they arent.

Not in the beginning... Starcraft did have some major balance issues in the first few patches. *NOW* it's super balanced and easy to pickup. But let's face it, it's nearly 10 years old so...

There's a fine line between innovation and hindrance. WarCraft 3 and StarCraft were both released by the same company, but I personally can't stand WC3. Why? Well, aside from feeling like there's a lot of unit imbalance, I don't want to be building farms on top of mining, logging, building town halls, and perfecting the flux capacitor all while keeping tabs on my enemies and going on the offensive if I can.

I've watched my friend play other RTS games, and they're often pretty slow-paced with even more cumbersome things that may have been hailed as innovations by the designers, but rank right up there with the flux capacitor crack in my book. SC at least felt faster and resource gathering wasn't quite as annoying. This isn't to say I felt the game was perfectly balanced, because I don't think it was. I think the Zerg had the upper hand in many situations simply due to the ability to mass produce. However, I didn't have to worry about my base constantly being under scrutiny with satellites, cheap "nuke" options there's no counter to because all they had to do is wait for a timer to hit zero and click, and units so stupidly overpowered that you know every match will see them built.

I don't need to terra-form. I don't want my air units being good for 2 shots before they have to return to base for ammo or fuel. I just want to log in and beat someone else with a bit of ingenuity, not do my taxes at the same time.

cheap "nuke" options there's no counter to because all they had to do is wait for a timer to hit zero and click

Yeah, that's the main thing I freaking hate about Command and Conquer. I don't want a game like the one you're describing, either, but some of the things from, for example, Dawn of War could be implemented in SC2 without changing any of that.

I suck at RTS games. :)

That being said, it's too early to assume they'll be bringing a bland and lifeless rehash.

We can sell them crap from 10 years ago with prettier graphics

Except SC 1 was anything but crap.

More like... "we can sell them the same high quality game we've had before, but add on new functionality for old units, new units, and new gameplay while at the same time upgrading the graphics" (they've at least shown many units can now hop from high terrain to low terrain easily).

I agree.

For some perspective, check out what SC looked like in its alpha and beta stages:

http://sclegacy.com/features/evolution.php

Good link, that's pretty comforting as far as graphics at least.

People are complaining an awful lot about how games aren't complicated and frustrating enough, lately.

I love RTSes. I suck at them, like at every other game ever invented (possibly excluding a couple of puzzle games I'm somewhat decent at), and I want to play them for fun.

I'd welcome a game with a "casual" and a "hardcore" setting, not so much easy vs difficult as simple vs overly complicated mechanics. I don't need a game which turns my RTS units into overly cranky Sims. I want a game where I can build houses, make units, and make those units attack other units. Nothing more is really neccesary.


-Alexandra

StarCraft is the most complicated and frustrating RTS ever at the upper tiers. You can say "well I don't play with people in the upper tiers," but that argument would apply to all of the newer "complicated and frustrating" games, too.

I haven't had the chance to properly hunt down all the info about it yet, but I don't thinktheir apparent non-interest in inventing new, random races to just ret-con into existence for the SC world for more options at the race select screen is a bad one at all. I'm extremely cynical about companies who do that and Blizzard does had a track record for it.

If they want additional 'races' then there's always expanding on Infested Terrans, Infested Protoss and maybe even old remnants of the shattered Xel'Naga (or however it was spelled) civilisations.

I thought the exact same things about it when I saw the teasers. It basically looks like the same game it was 8 years ago with updated graphics. I think its been mentioned above though but, its really too early to tell. The release is at least a year away.

...How does it look like a Warcraft III mod? People keep saying this, but its not. Warcraft III was more jagged looking, and the units used a lot less polygons. Sure SC2 uses a similar graphics style, but its Blizzard, and second the characters look far more fluid and smooth than anything in WC3

Blizzard has never been one to make its games overtly complicated. They keep things simple, but they're still incredibly fun. In fact, I think the most complicated game they've released in ages, was World of Warcraft (which was incredibly simple compared to other MMOs out there)

WC3 is insanely complicated in terms of micro.

Gee, a few screenshots and an early alpha stage video and you've got your review all typed up and ready to pollute teh intahweb. You might want to reserve judgment until you've actually played the final result, lest you run the risk of making a huge ass out of yourself.

You mean like the part where I said that I'm going to buy or not buy this game based on its merits? Maybe you should think about being less of a dick.

It's silly to get worked up over it right now, we hardly know anything about it...except it'll have the same old massive armies and shy away from the style seen in WC3 where generic units are laden with abilities that must be microed as well as overpowered hero units that skew the game badly. Reading one of the interviews, one of the designers mentioned that, for example, units attacking for the high-ground get an attack bonus...and also cannot be seen by units passing through on the low ground. THAT is quite a difference and a step in the right direction. Let us hope it is the beginning of a pattern and not simply an interesting anomaly. One cannot help but be interested in their apparent goal of making the races even more disparate than ever, and balance can be patched into...well...balance eventually.