Staredit Network

That was the 1.10 patch, which ruined the entire PvP aspect of Diablo 2. Thats why i play on a 1.09 server.

As long as they make SC2 with enhanced 2D graphic I want it. If not, forget it.
I don't really know why, but units seems to be a lot stupider in 3D RTSs than the good old 2D RTSs.

Maybe you just don't like Warcraft styled units.

I want them to only take the original Starcraft and improve on it, dont change too much, keep it just like th old one and make it better. Maybe some new units but dont overload it too much. I hope its good.

Words of truth: The playability of games rather depend on people to people. Starcraft was simple, and it matched almost everybody's requirements the ability to play the game. However, I still see people only play simple "Zergling Blood" games and computer stomps which I find amusing and disbelieving. To them however, it's just a game and it's fun to them.

They trashed it with warcraft III? What the hell are you talking about. Warcraft III looks good, game play is awesome, and it simply rocks. WONDER WHERE YOU GOT THAT IDEA! - Ever tried the normal games of funness? Well, seeing as a BW person divides into either 3 classes. Melee player, UMS Player, Mixed Player. UMS Players hate melee, Melee players think UMS is for nubs, and mixed players are seldom.
P.S. Oh, and if you think WC3 looks tacky, get a better graphics card and it wont. Iam a fan of WC3 and RTS game play.

Starcraft is still a role model for all the RTS games out there. Starcraft has hell of a storyline I want to see. If SC2 comes out, I'll just get it for the sake of story. Like getting a novel.

Depends what you mean by 'updated'. They did try something new, certainly. The something new was very bad and failed to make it a good game. If you call this 'updated', then okay, the gameplay was updated. I feel that the one thing we can hand Blizzard is that it was an experiment no one had done before, so perhaps they didn't realize how bad it would turn out. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have learned their lesson, and it is likely that StarCraft II, when it comes out, will be an massive multiplayer FPS/RTS hybrid, and bad.

But there's no denying that WarCraft III was the worst thing that ever happened to the WarCraft series. I mean, it lags so incredibly much even in singleplayer, never mind multiplayer, that it hardly even matters what the gameplay is like, it's just unplayable anyway. If only it hadn't been for the lag, I would have at least commended it for its UMS mapping, but as it is there is nothing that can make that game good until someone gets rid of the lag.

Well, Age of Empires III and Armies of Exigo appear to look okay (I've never actually played either of them), but you're right that WarCraft III looked like crap. So yeah, unless they can do 3D and get rid of the lag and make it look nice, I'd prefer to go with 2D. Unfortunately, it looks like Blizzard is so obsessed with 3D that they probably don't even understand how 2D works anymore. And I'm sure they'll be the first gaming company to go 4D when that becomes viable.

Looks good? On the contrary, it's so ugly it's painful. Thank goodness for the ability to import new models. Good gameplay? Again, adding the heroes in that style was about the worst decision Blizzard could have made. To paraphrase some guy on the Battle.net Forums, 'StarCraft has micro, macro, resource management, strategic thinking, multitasking and psychological analysis. WarCraft III has micro.' And even after implementing the heroes, they had to add insult to injury, and put in mountains of autocast and no ships. I mean, no ships? You can tell right there something's gone wrong.

But hay if starcraft did have 3-d rendering then maybe mapping could be more fun. Remember in warcraft 3 that when you move the mouse middle wheel the screen goes down like its on the floor. If that mode combined with scary maps,Laser tag madness maps and others then who knows where starcraft might be. And did I mention Air units?

I don't get you guys, I don't really want to pay money, and have to switch a game just for a little improvements. I am tired of Starcraft, if I wanted more of Starcraft I would play it now, but I want something new.

I agree. Warcraft III was trashed... I only play it for the Rp's that are wicked complicated and fun . A Starcraft II is a good idea. The only problem is that us Starcraft players will be expecting so much, that nothing will be up to our standards.

We would probably have to pay money for a new Starcraft if it was really cutting-edge quality.

StarCraft 2 isn't going to be even started for another 5 to 10 years.. and since this game came out in the late 90's, I'm sure mostly everybody will be bored of it by then. My guess is that Blizzard is going to try to make SC2 with some kind of crazy.. high-tec graphics.. that you'd need to spend millions of dollars on GFX cards just to play it. Although a SC2 would probably bring an upgrade to map making in general, I doubt it'd be worth it.

Only a opinions game. Warcraft III wasn't trashed. Get a better graphics card. Theres alot of new 256mb video cards. Do you even own Warcraft III?

WC3 is both good and bad. Good thing is that the graphics were updated and map making is at its best. The bad thing is that some people don't really like the graphics and choose not to play it because of that (like me), but that's just my own thoughts.

The way those things lagged, you'd need BlueGene to get it to run at a constant speed (a constant non-zero speed, I mean). Besides, it doesn't matter how good your graphics card is, it can't make ugly graphics look nice.

No, actually I played a friend's version. If anything it lagged even worse on the computer I used than the computer he was using, which is saying something. And quite frankly, I'm glad I never bought my own copy.

Yes, but it can make ugly graphics look not so ugly.

I think that Starcraft 2 may not be soo bad. The only thing is that it has been a considerable amount of time since blizzard made the first Starcraft. I hope so much that its the same.

Are you sure you have the right game... You can run WC3 on a Pentium 3 with like a Radeon from the 7 series or GeForce from the 4 series.

I love WC3

better the Graphic cards, it actually slow your computer down. Dude. You cant keep playing on Pentium 3, 256 RAM, 64 MB Video cards. Unless, you're gonna play starcraft forever. Still. New professional programs and new... even basic OSes are gonna lag your computer to hell if you arent upgraded.

Question: why are you whining about lag when your (friend's) computer sucks? Nowadays, WCIII graphics suck because they're old. However, StarCraft graphics are by far worse yet. WCIII won't lag at all on any $500+ PC today.

Uhh, give me 200 and I could make a computer that doesn't lag on WC3 right now, just for emphasis

StarCraft: Ghost was a stealth action shooter game dedicated to Splinter Cell to vehicles. Blizzard did not spoil enough information about StarCraft: Ghost, you may never know if whether or not that there is a new race or not, it depends because a game like WarCraft III had new races such as the undead and nightelves, then onto the expansion pack showing off "Blood Elves", and the "Naga" (And in WoW:BC, there is another race as well) so you may never know if StarCraft: Ghost has another race or not. All that Blizzard spoiled about StarCraft: Ghost is three planets (Char, Auir and Mar Sara), vehicles, multiplayer, etcetera but they weren't really into specifics. StarCraft: Ghost is still a work-in progress game, but you'd never know because they removed it from their site to make you think "they canceled" it but they're just afraid of the reviewers' rating systems.

So for StarCraft 2, there could be new races, you'll just never know until they give out the spoils or you unlocked in the campaign. StarCraft 2 on the other hand hasn't been shown at all yet, you can't judge by StarCraft 1's campaign, WarCraft III's map editor (By the way, that map editor is so advanced, you don't need a third-party) nor StarCraft: Ghost's information. For whatever we would know, StarCraft 2 could be built from the ground up like Halo Wars (which isn't using the Age of Empires RTS engine) to fit up the next-gen criteria.


EDIT:
For the posts that mentions Blizzard is only focusing only for World of WarCraft just for the money, look at EA games who has attempted to buy off Blizzard as their publishers, thank god Blizzard denied that because EA is just a cheap publisher earning money for free then later attempts to sabotage the multiplayer (After reading in other forums talking about EA). By the way, in GameSpot, they were talking about Blizzard a while ago, there are two sides of Blizzard, one that focuses on the StarCraft Universe as the other for WarCraft as well for other projects. You can't judge Blizzard by their upcomming and recent games of World of WarCraft, World of WarCraft: Burning Crusade, at least they manage to keep them as MMORPGS as massive as possible. If Blizzard was doing that for the money, then why would they make massive environments? Blizzard in my oppinion, they make quallity games and tries to predict their reviews other than "money earning", they don't care about money, just the satisfaction for millions of players' enjoyment.

2nd EDIT:
Felagund, StarCraft is eight years old, give that game a break, if you think StarCraft 2 will fumble, just think how old compared from age to StarCraft 1 to 2 (Depends what year it's made). StarCraft 2 could fit up as a next-generation game, Supreme Commander one of the best of E3 but in that game, everything is free when I browsed around their site. And if everything is free, you can launch and wage war with thousands of vehicles from land, to sea, to sky itself but in StarCraft, at least it's an actual "Strategy" game. If Supreme Commander gives away enough information, I'll compare Supreme Commander and the nine year old StarCraft (Supreme Commander is coming out in 2007). WarCraft III may be the sequl to WarCraft II, but at least they manage to use StarCraft's gameplay and map-editor features from terrain to triggers itself. WarCraft III can be your StarCraft 2 right now temproarily.
By the way, it's funny to see how Supreme Commander is also "SC".

8...?... Starcraft ORIGINAL released on 1996. which makes it 10 years old. Theres no engine change to the expansion, and the engine dates back to 1994.

SC was released in 1998. The engine is a heavily modified WCII engine. Brush up on your SC history man.

Wonderful that you guys think that Starcraft graphics suck. Well who says that they have to be the best. I say that graphics are only important when it comes to FPS games and other close combat games. In games like Starcraft what is available is enough!