Koki on 12/10/2008 at 07:29
Optimism? I don't even give two shits about SC2. Despite the PC gaming being dead for fifty years the world of RTSes moved on since SC. So it's same mechanics as eight(?) years ago... only uglier and dumber(jump jet infantry dual-wielding pistols :rolleyes:)
I'm just trying to set the facts straight.
Sulphur on 12/10/2008 at 07:39
Yeah, optimism. It's kinda hard not to see it in that post, y'know? Don't worry, displaying it doesn't make you any less of whatever you are.
And you can set the facts straight when we have enough of 'em.
Koki on 12/10/2008 at 08:33
Well funny you say that, as after I heard that there will be no stat allocation in D3 I decided to not give a fuck about anything anymore. Every single promising game on the horizon turned out to be ruined in one way or another.
EvaUnit02 on 12/10/2008 at 09:37
Quote Posted by Koki
Every single promising game on the horizon turned out to be ruined in one way or another.
So how has DoW2 been ruined in your eyes?
P.S. This question is specifically for Koki, not you Jashin.
Koki on 12/10/2008 at 10:59
Wargear drops. Invincible heroes squad leaders with free reinforcing. Bosses with health bar on top of the screen. Steady degression of canon(DoW > WA > DC) continued.
JohnnyTheWolf on 12/10/2008 at 12:50
Quote Posted by raevol
I'd just like to say that I've always found blizzard storytelling to be shallow and tacky. Maybe it's just me. The gameplay of their games is always what brings me back, not the "oh noes one of the good guys went BAD!!1!" plotlines.
Storywise, StarCraft was already a
major improvement over WarCraft II, but yeah, "shallow" is a bit right. However, that's probably because they were forced to squeeze their story into the usual 10-mission format.
With more missions for each side, they at least will have more time to flesh things out properly. Who knows? Maybe this time, we'll actually get to know the main characters without having to read the manual.
Quote:
If there's actually going to be 30 fully fleshed-out missions per side, I will be perfectly happy to shut up, eat my hat, look contrite etc. However, we're assuming this, so until we actually know more, I won't be holding my breath.
We're not assuming: that's the number Blizzard gave when they announced it. The real question should be instead: will they keep their promise?
dj_ivocha on 12/10/2008 at 15:31
IF the campaign content is indeed worth 3 full games, I'd much rather have a Starcraft II: Ten Missions For Each Race and then Starcraft II: Expansion With A Great Story and some time after that Starcraft II: Expansion With Even Greater Story, than have Terrancraft II, then wait for 18 months before I can play Zergcraft III and another 12 for Protosscraft IV. But that's just me. :confused:
Digital Nightfall on 12/10/2008 at 15:34
Personally, I think it's awesome that one of the industries most reliable and boring developers has managed to stir up intense, alienating controversy about both of their two forthcoming titles (and potentially third after those). Way to get people talking, Blizzard! :thumb:
The_Raven on 12/10/2008 at 16:37
Quote Posted by Koki
Assuming there really will be ~30 missions per side, with Starcraft quality of writing, I fail to see how they're grabbing any money.
You guys may want to enlighten me on this, I haven't played Starcraft, but wasn't it just a giant rip off of Aliens? Considering how Aliens rips sound like they're written by twelve-year-olds, I fail to see how that qualifies as good writing.
Sulphur on 12/10/2008 at 16:53
Quote:
We're not assuming: that's the number Blizzard gave when they announced it. The real question should be instead: will they keep their promise?
Mm. 30 non-fluff missions per faction. We'll have to wait and see. Me and me hat here are perfectly willing to do that. ;)
