Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, now it was aired at the Gamescon and no one is talking about it?

http://www.starcraft2.com/

Discuss!!

I can never forgive Blizzard for making WoW, cancelling Starcraft: Ghost, and making Diablo III all bright and happy.

Starcraft II, assuming it doesn't keep getting pushed back and then cancelled, will be a boring and generic game. It looks pretty, but the gameplay looks dull.

Zerg Rush Act II. Should be fun.

SC: Ghost looked terrible.

I'm glad it got canned.

However, they should hand it over to Ubisoft to do.

Kanluwen wrote:SC: Ghost looked terrible.

I'm glad it got canned.

However, they should hand it over to Ubisoft to do.

You effing what? Have you seen the damn trailers? Sure, the graphics needed improving a bit, but otherwise it looked fine for its day.

SC: Ghost isn't the only game that Blizzard has canceled. They did the same thing with WarCraft Adventures awhile back. I'd much rather them have the balls to cancel a game than release something that blows.

And how do you know Blizzard made Diablo III all bright and happy? It's not even out yet.

Hordini wrote:SC: Ghost isn't the only game that Blizzard has canceled. They did the same thing with WarCraft Adventures awhile back. I'd much rather them have the balls to cancel a game than release something that blows.

And how do you know Blizzard made Diablo III all bright and happy? It's not even out yet.

Watch the gameplay videos.

I've seen most of them. Yeah, some of the outdoor areas seem brighter, since they're outdoors, but it seems pretty par for the course after Diablo II. They're far from wha I'd call "bright and happy," especially if you look at the videos where the characters are in dungeon environments.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:SC: Ghost looked terrible.

I'm glad it got canned.

However, they should hand it over to Ubisoft to do.

You effing what? Have you seen the damn trailers? Sure, the graphics needed improving a bit, but otherwise it looked fine for its day.

I saw the trailers, I saw the gameplay footage they had, etc.

It looked okay, but it wasn't the graphics holding it back.

The gameplay and 'stealth' aspect were seriously lacking, and the game was poorly executed.

Deal with it, the game would have sucked.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Hordini wrote:SC: Ghost isn't the only game that Blizzard has canceled. They did the same thing with WarCraft Adventures awhile back. I'd much rather them have the balls to cancel a game than release something that blows.

And how do you know Blizzard made Diablo III all bright and happy? It's not even out yet.

Watch the gameplay videos.

I actually played it and it wasn't to bad. Probably not up to Blizzards normal standard but fun.

With the pricing structure for SC2 I don't have that much interest. I'll wait for Diablo III.

Bright and happy is the new formula by which Blizzard works.

Making your mind up about a game because the art design uses colour is weird. Sure graphics matter, but there is a lot more to art design than how bright the scheme is.

It's Diablo, anyway. The game basically consisted of miserable, darkly coloured terrain that you ignore while hordes of mooks charge you and get slaughtered, so watch your little XP bar go up and hope one of them drops something good.

Starcraft 2 I'm not certain about. I don't like the pricing structure. And the first one is loved for being a really well balanced multiplayer game with a huge number of viable strategies, but I never really liked the multiplayer. I liked playing the solo campaign, building mega-bases and amassing vast armies to go and crush the computer... but that more leisurely, easier style of play has gone out of fashion. Now units are killed in seconds so you have to react very quickly, and base defences are rarely worthwhile. I understand that it produces a more tactial, cut throat game but I just want to screw around, you know?

sebster wrote:Making your mind up about a game because the art design uses colour is weird. Sure graphics matter, but there is a lot more to art design than how bright the scheme is.

It's Diablo, anyway. The game basically consisted of miserable, darkly coloured terrain that you ignore while hordes of mooks charge you and get slaughtered, so watch your little XP bar go up and hope one of them drops something good.

That was the original premise of Diablo: a simple hack-and-slash where everything was dark and gritty, but Blizzard feel obliged to make it more colourful and kid-friendly now. As if there weren't already enough eight-year-olds on Battle.net.

speaking of Ghost... there's a Ghost mod using the StarCraft 2 engine... and a Lost Vikings mod using the same thing...

unless I'm hearing things incorrectly from the news I was getting about Blizzcon.

Cheese Elemental wrote:That was the original premise of Diablo: a simple hack-and-slash where everything was dark and gritty, but Blizzard feel obliged to make it more colourful and kid-friendly now. As if there weren't already enough eight-year-olds on Battle.net.

It still seems relatively dark and gritty to me. Some of it may just stem from the fact that the graphics are just clearer nowadays. It is a bit brighter than the original, I'll admit, but it's hardly at World of WarCraft levels, and hardly what I'd call kid-friendly.

The gameplay still looks good, but I want it to be 'grimdarkcantseeanything', not 'My First Dungeon Crawler'.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The gameplay still looks good, but I want it to be 'grimdarkcantseeanything', not 'My First Dungeon Crawler'.

Then turn your gamma levels down?


The dungeons look pretty dark to me...what do you think of the actual dungeon environments?

I think the dungeons look OK, but the monsters look pretty generic now and the Barbarian looks a bit overpowered. In one of the gameplay videos, you see one Barb ripping through dozens of ghouls without taking any serious damage. Not even Fallen were that puny.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I think the dungeons look OK, but the monsters look pretty generic now and the Barbarian looks a bit overpowered. In one of the gameplay videos, you see one Barb ripping through dozens of ghouls without taking any serious damage. Not even Fallen were that puny.

I see that you are missing the point behind Diablo.

No siree, I know what Diablo is all about, but it looks way too easy. Even Fallen could bring you down in D2, but these ghouls look pathetic.

Were they showcasing straight up gameplay or an overpowered Barbarian
chewing through levels to show off their abilities?

Even scrubs mobs became scary when you hit Nightmare and Hell, especially when
Champions got that hideous lightning enchantment...

Whatever it is I know I will be hooked on D3 for weeks if not longer.

Speaking as someone that was at Blizzcon 2009 and played Diablo 3, there's obviously a number of people in this thread that have had no hands on experience with it or listened to any of the Q&A about it.

There will be many different types of outdoor environments, as said during the 'con. Wasn't Act 2 in Diablo 2 bright when you were outdoors? The dungeon environments are definitely darker as well.

Also, it's not as 'easy' as the Barb video makes you think. I died two or three times playing the Monk character. My friend playing the Sorceress next to me died that many times as well and we were running around together the whole time. The 2 other kids that were in our game next to us, that had demoed it a number of times, died at least once each as well. For myself and my Sorc buddy, we were literally ripped apart by a pack of Fallen and their shamans at one point.

Regarding Starcraft 2, they said repeatedly that it'll be released next year, though they didn't say when. They gave no indication of when D3 will be coming, though they did mention that only one class was left to unveil.

Cheese Elemental wrote:No siree, I know what Diablo is all about, but it looks way too easy. Even Fallen could bring you down in D2, but these ghouls look pathetic.

Unless you were playing on hell difficulty, getting fallen to kill you is fairly difficult. Ghouls weren't any better, they simply had more health to compensate for being slower than a lethargic glacier. Or you were playing a sorceress

I've never heard anyone exclaim how wonderously original the enemies in Diablo 2 were either. I don't understand why people are flipping their lids about Diablo 3 not taking place in perpetual midnight. You played Act 2 in D2 didn't you? It was a blazing desert. The only difference is the increased palette of available colors.

Railguns wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No siree, I know what Diablo is all about, but it looks way too easy. Even Fallen could bring you down in D2, but these ghouls look pathetic.

Unless you were playing on hell difficulty, getting fallen to kill you is fairly difficult. Ghouls weren't any better, they simply had more health to compensate for being slower than a lethargic glacier. Or you were playing a sorceress

I've never heard anyone exclaim how wonderously original the enemies in Diablo 2 were either. I don't understand why people are flipping their lids about Diablo 3 not taking place in perpetual midnight. You played Act 2 in D2 didn't you? It was a blazing desert. The only difference is the increased palette of available colors.

But, but, at one point they takes the sun away! Woe! Woe!

SC2 looks great visually, but Im not a fan of action so fast it blurs... im a methodical, slow killer damn it (which is why i prefer dow to sc anway). Also, I think its bad form to release sc2 as 3 seperate installments.

In terms of diablo 3, I cant wait. But i do wonder what this mysterious fifth class is going to be.

SC2 will hopefully renew my interest in the RTS genre since imo the first SC is still the best one around. It'll definitely make DOW 1 and 2 look like crap though in terms of gameplay.

I want SC2 to be good ( im glad they keep pushing it back )
they need to bring back army vs army game play they are the ones that started the term "zerg rush" after all.

LunaHound wrote:
I want SC2 to be good ( im glad they keep pushing it back )

Um, what?

Development started in 2003. Blizzard have no excuse for that when Starcraft II needed more attention than WoW. Starcraft was already old, and Warcraft just had Warcraft III released in 2001, and was a big enough success to keep Blizzard going until SCII could be released. Blizzard need to hold to their commitments and finish their damn games on time.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
I want SC2 to be good ( im glad they keep pushing it back )

Um, what?

Development started in 2003. Blizzard have no excuse for that when Starcraft II needed more attention than WoW. Starcraft was already old, and Warcraft just had Warcraft III released in 2001, and was a big enough success to keep Blizzard going until SCII could be released. Blizzard need to hold to their commitments and finish their damn games on time.

They dont need "excuse" what they did were rather smart moves , making sure SC2 will out class every RTS when its released.