I'll mark your words.

Hmm...Starcraft II won't last more than 3 months eh? Well, I'll take you on for that bet.

As for the WoW art style being a lousy decision, that is based on personal preference. IMHO, I don't mind this art style at all.

Now as for those who say "Aww man, it takes 12 years for Starcraft II to be released and all they did was make it more shiny and add some units", I have to ask...is that a bad thing? I mean really, does the phrase : "Not broke, don't fix it" ring a bell? Lets just take another recent RTS beta for comparison. The whole game got a drastic overhaul and people are screaming through the roof and says that its better to just use back the tried-and-tested formula. Now SCII Beta is out and people are saying that they didn't change the game enough for their liking.

Basic concept and purpose of the game outdated? You just summed up almost every single RTS game in existance. Build base, gather resources, build army, right click destroy. Regardless of how many layers of colour there is these days in RTS games, the core is still there. Besides World In Conflict, most RTS games have this core no matter how simplified or streamlined the process is.

I watch replays just want to see how well it run on my rig,as most replays are quite bad and boring to watch now.

There are a few really good ones,with David Kim.

People are still learning about the game.

No one started with near infinite money,but now Blizzard has WoW which manage to bring them constant flow of money.

I disagree that other company sux so much and Blizzard didnt. There are some great RTS back in late 90s like KKND or C&C back then which was awesome. The reason why SC1 become so popular is because of the balance overhaul patch in 1999/2000 where bring the game to be capable of being played competitvely. It's expensive to do a balance overhaul and most of the time,you dont get much from it. Also,during 1998, Sc1 was like a gift from the gods as it's so different from other RTS,especially on Blizzard's amazing work on making all 3 race different from each other.

I still remember that back in 1998,Sukken Colony takes forever to attack and always make me WTF when my units died from some random surprise buttseks spike popping out suddenly.

I'll take it as players are still learning about the game.Thats probably why they are turtling behind 10 Siege Tanks to read the tool tips and understand the tech trees,rather that they are too dumb to expand or attack.

I doubt turtling will even appear on a amateur competition,as expanding and constant harassing is much better than walling yourself up with defence. Turtles will always lose to an opponent that is expanding more than him.

Since Blizzard is with Activision now,i think there isnt much difference.

There are other developers does thing quite uniquely,not just Blizzard.At the same time,i have seen games with reasonably low requirements.

Crysis is just an exception.

I doubt SC2 gonna last less than 3 months.With the hype and anticipation behind it,it probably will go on for a long time.At the same time,i expect to see 2 camps of RTS gamers,the first camp will consist of gamers who enjoyed SC2 and doesnt bother with the 1998 style gameplay. The second camp would be those who hates SC2 because it's a 1998 game in 3D,probably are also those who are used to play modern RTS like CoH,DoW2 or ETW.

I do agree SC2 is almost the same as SC1 in terms of gameplay and most of it's technology are 2006 stuff.Still quite disappointed with that.

I havent play it yet,so it's hard to say whether i like the gameplay or not. After watching more decent replays,most probably i'll enjoy playing it, as i prefer old school style gameplay than those new gen RTS that have no base building like C&C4.

All Blizzard need now is redo the sound and redo the graphics to be more gritty like SC1,not a cartoony cheap online game.

---

Added on February 21, 2010, 11:23 pmCompared to BFBC2 Beta,this is utter fail in terms of impression on the graphics,sound and maybe gameplay on first sight.

BFBC2 gave such a good impression since the first video.

At least DICE is still trying to improve upon the FPS formula.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Feb 21 2010, 11:24 PM

just saw one replay where a protoss player directly build a pylon outside of enemy's base and just warp in zealots....protoss seems to be quite dangerous if played properly now since they can warp units in whenever there is power field..

and SC1 does not has this stuff right?

Wait till you see a Zerg Nydus worm's head popping out from inside your base & unleash waves upon waves of Banelings as parting gifts.

u know what will kill SC2 ?

Ans : DOTA for SC2

now you reminds me of that scary thing

used to fear that a lot when i played SC

and terran also has their medivac now....all play sneak sneak lol

Icefrog is already moving on with HoN, so I doubt there'll be a DOTA on SC2.

In SC1, protoss player usually build gateways outside enemy's base, and spam zealots, that's given if they're slow in productions or something, correct me if i'm wrong, that's called "cheese" in a way.

i'm not sure, but from the video i saw, the warp is pretty fast, and you can warp in as many units as your resource can allow at that time....

There's a cooldown for each warp i think, it can be countered if the enemy is very caution the situation around him.

Nope,only SC2 has this.

It's gonna even worse if he use a Warp Prism to do that.

If you want to talk about DotA,go back to your Wc3 subforum.

This thread is only for discussion about SC2.

Thats the only reason i love SC2,it seems like all 3 races have more mobility than SC1.

No,Icefrog is now in Valve.

So...who else was selected for beta besides meet?
Have not actually taken a look at the actual beta yet...

but for early harassment he still needs the pylon strategy right? =P

except that zerg don't have the terrain crossing units(if i am not mistaken), protoss has the big ass colosus, while terran has the hip-hoping reaper

This post has been edited by dlct87: Feb 22 2010, 01:04 AM

Ash also just got it.

I think that strat is only variable in the middle of the game.

Im not very familiar with the tech tree,though.

well i can only watch replays on youtube now, will be stocking up money for this game, and possibly a new rig =P

wah.. out of so many ppl here, only 2 of them got it ah ~_~" lucky le~

those who got the beta key, any lag in battlenet ? malaysia boleh tak ?

This post has been edited by CuteDay: Feb 22 2010, 02:16 AM

That a damn good question...
Multiplayer for me in msia will largely depend on whether the lag is bearable or not

Define lag, i don't see much lag that i can notice anyway. But im sure the ping is 300 the least.

- i especially hate replays with sub 50 APM and resources stagnant above 1k lol. in war3 terms, thats REALLY TERRIBAD

- well, i am merely replying to your post that it isnt really blizzard's long term support when the games are out for a similar period. ive liked kknd and even the c&c series, but lets be honest, it was never as balanced as sc1 would ever be even during the first day of release, adding in the fact that sc1 had to balance 3 races while kknd and C&C had to do with 2.

- maybe its just me, but you dont have to play the game to learn that. i mean, have you clicked help during the replays? you get a FULL unit/building list/tech tree layout + tooltips and descriptions even showing the cost/buildtime/pros & cons. my jaw dropped at how detailed it was lol (and yes i read it up myself out of curiousity)

also, heres the thing with constant expansion: you do have to invest in starting capital to start said expansion. the turtler just needs a natural expo, d that up, tech up, and once high tech units start to roll, even when ur 4:2 expo'ed, it'll still be hard to fight against.

and, no. blizzard isnt with activision (christ, does anyone read their press release? lol) it was just a merger between vivendi and activision, with the final name using blizzard as said name is well, very marketable. blizzard as a game dev/studio still do their own things (ever since the days with vivendi) and blizz activision (formerly vivendi and activision) dont really have much say (if any) towards what they do

- i was merely using crysis as an example. though it cant be denied that a huge majority of games out there (especially those uber graphic ones) do have really high requirements.