i am looking forward to it and the new use map settings maps that are bound to exist. however the game i am really waiting for is achron. starcraft = the sequal to the RTS that made RTSs awesome, achron = Time Travel RTS. how can you beat time travel.

Oh eyah i'm looking forward to achron, but the problem is..  you take out the time travel and that game looks crap.

If you took TA or SC, and added that time travel to it, it'd be the most amazing game ever.  But it looks like a cookie cutter budget C&C clone with time travel.

I have played starcraft a few times over the years. I was a latecomer and to be honest was not that impressed. Must be a "u had to be there" thing. I suspect it was also a case of "there is nothing else around at the time"

There are too few unit, they may be well balanced but compared to games like COH the units are boring and poorly animated. SC always seemed to be one of those games that ran out of variety really fast. In SC2 I really hope they make you feel more like you are part of an army that has real character.

SC also seemed to me to be rather annoying when I saw those rather small and unimpressive terran cruisers overhead. I mean in an overhead view things closer appear larger. So why are they like the size of fighter jets but moving like slugs?

DOW2 suffers from much of the same thing SC2 will suffer from. Too few units

I will keep an open mind however. But SC has just never really grabbed me. But then again neither has that other classic Warcraft3

I have played Blizzard titles since WarCraft 2 and when I first tried StarCraft, WarCraft 2 felt outdated. The graphics and animations were so much better. It was a new generation of RTS. That's what I thought.

Jump to today though and StarCraft is a bit unplayable because of its ancient unfriendly UI. Have to fight the interface instead of the friggin opponent!

To make a long story short, StarCraft 2 is on my "3 most anticipated games list" and it's probable it's nr.1!

Destraex

StarCraft was made in 1997. The graphics technology of those days were quite limited to when Company of Heroes were developed.

But Blizzard have their own artstyle. It's a bit over-the-top, not so realistic which IMO is fantastic.

About size & scale, Blizzard puts gameplay above everything else (as all gamedevs should). Having gigantic cruisers that cover half the screen would obscure the view. Also, Blizzard is aiming at making StarCraft 2 the next E-sports game and that means that there can't be stuff in the way which covers the players vision.

You can make big armies. You got a maximum of 200 population. That's like 50 Marines, 10 of the other infantry, 3 Ghosts, 15 Siege Tanks, 10 Hellions, 3 BCs, 15 Nighthawks and the rest workers.

If you ever manage to fill your 200 population cap though, then you're not playing as good as you can.

If however, you want Supreme Commander like battles then the StarCraft series are not for you. But that's how things are. Some like C&C, some Age of Empires/Mythology and some the craft games.

I personally think the graphics look like crap. Blizzard's graphics are too cartoony for my taste.

Myth II is what RTS's should have become.  Instead they're all trying to be Starcraft.

I'll probably buy Starcraft in any case though.  As much as I think the myth series is far better as a strategy game, there's never going to be another Myth as far as I can tell, and I kind of like Starcraft anyway.

I'm thinking that as well though I'll see what the reviews (and the System Requirements + DRM are) before making a decision.

I'll get Starcrap 2 some time after I get Warcrap 3, a vastly more interesting proposal due to the lame hero system, which is looking to be never since I still haven't bothered with it.  Blizzard games are all polish and no point.  A good atmosphere and balance is nice, but a game that's actually interesting is required for it to matter much.

This game will be fucking awesome. Blizzard doing a good job as always.

Advertisement: http://forums.demigodthegame.com/347834

Considering the age of Warcraft 3 thats nothing to shout about tbh. I would sooner play sins or  dawn of war DC.

Put a couple lurkers in your base and the only way for anyone to attack you was with a nuke

I am so looking for SC2 but do not expect major differences. I saw every video and at times you think your watchen SC1

Incidentally, that's literally how Laser Squad Nemesis works. It's a turn-based game where turns are simultaneous, and each turn is really 10s . You can issue (fairly complex) orders every 10 seconds.

Time pressure is only one of advantages RTS has over TBS. Other benefits include accurate representation of action (A-B-A-B turns favor attacker, HOMM3 is a particularly good example of this because it's very beneficial to strike first, you can often completely avoid losses this way). In a classic turn-based game, there's no good way to differentiate between a shotgun and an automatic assault rifle, for example. This is easy to do in a game like Laser Squad Nemesis. ( You can try the demo for free )

Another benefit of RTS - it's better suited to multiplayer. In a TBS game with sequential turns, waiting for your turn can be agonizing. Simultaneous turn TBS games are better in this aspect, but they do so by sacrificing some control you have (battles are not interactive in Dominions 3; you can only issue orders every 10 seconds in Laser Squad Nemesis). Less control also means less micromanagement, but in some cases it makes things impossible (big army destroying several small armies in 1 day)

My point is that there are other other aspects to RTS games than just time pressure.