StarCraft 2 at Dreamhack 2008

​

StarCraft 2 was publicly playable again at the European Dreamhack LAN party in Sweden. Unfortunately there were no changes to the build and it appears in all aspects to be the same build we saw at BlizzCon 2008. While there are no changes to report--or any other news at the moment for that matter--the game is continuing to garner rave reviews even in its "alpha" state.


SCLegacy has done a full writeup and appear to be the only site with members in attendance. You can read their full writeup here.


Keep chugging StarCrafters, and don't worry, we usually experience such droughts around Christmas time. Expect some new things to happen as soon as the holidays are over and Blizzard has digested its holiday food.


Discuss this article in the Forum!

 

If you went and you don't comment here, I will personally come find you... and it won't be pleasant.

 

In reply to one review i read from the GosuGamers group (who cant seem to grasp the basics of filming a game even on an elementary level)

You know what i hate about 'pro' gamers?

How they complain about goddamn animations being too realistic and how they believe they should be like starcrafts.

Honestly if you believe this then go ****ing play starcraft, a game can be balanced and an E-sport and still look good goddamn it. Blizzard will not allow the mod community and the immersion of the single player to fall so stupidly to some arrogant gamers who genuinly believe what they do is a 'sport' will be happy.

This is 2008 and a game where units magicly insta turn will not be accepted by the critics from an art pov.

Ok Ok.. im done.. really.. had to get that off my chest.. *takes angry cap off*

 

I disagree. Units having to turn will heavily affect gameplay, perhaps negatively. Death animations and such I am fine with, but in general I am against units turning around, unless it's part of the units core mechanics (think announcement Thor).
Not too noticable unit turning will make microing more fun and less sluggish I think.
I am not suggesting this for every unit. Siege Tanks, Ultralisks, most air units etc should of course have to turn around relatively slowly, but one of the complaints was that Zealots had to turn, right? Since I haven't played myself I can't say for sure, but I do think that Zealots, Zerglings and some other units shouldn't have noticable turning.

 

Are there any videos that show clearly how bad the turn-rate is for a small unit such as a Zergling or Zealot? I never really noticed it before since I'm not controlling it.

 

I would rather have the game play well then have it look nice. If that means units can turn around instantly so be it, though I don't know why that would be needed in all cases.

I don't think an air unit should have to make a banking turn to face the other way, sure its not realistic for a plane to be able to turn around without banking, but real planes can't hover in one spot like all the air units do. So obviously the air units in starcraft don't follow real world physics in that sense, why should they have to in turning. Adding a speed to the turning based on size would make sense. A zealot/marine could turn almost instantly, where as a tank would take time. This makes sense in both a graphic and game play aspect. Similar turning speeds could be applied to air units as well.

 

There's no way gameplay, in just about any game, will be perfectly realistic (even FPS although they are in a sense the most realistic) so realism should never come into the equation in making a game when it hinders the rest of it. Last time I checked, I didn't have a minibar in my peripheral that I use to issue commands Even if you were to say that a commander was using a computer and issueing these commands, there's no way they would recieve those instructions that fast.. so.. Realism should never be a factor when it hinders gameplay; only when it improves immersion.

 

First of all, they werent allowed to do a decent film. They couldnt focus the screen for too long without being kicked out of the place. That's why the vids were staring at the gamer and ocassionally to the screen.

Secondly.. do you know why they are called "pro" gamers?

They are lifeless nerds who study the game. That's why the oppinions they might have about the gameplay are usually a lot more important than the ones stupid newbs post on bnet asking for carrier at 10 mins buildable from nexus.

In my opinon, some turn animations and some unit mechanics are yet to be perfected. Those are Mutalisks, zealots, zerlings.. Units that dont seem to be working as they should.

 

Also, they are pretty much by default against the changing of anything because they don't want to have to change their strategies or come out of the range of what they are used to because that would expend energy and would require more effort than what they want. Professional gamer's opinions are valued way too much. Do you honestly think they're going to be okay enough with a game that will in their mind destroy what they've worked so hard to achieve? It's like football players. They are going to resist anything that makes them have to start over from the beginning in their training.

 

They won't be starting over from the beginning, they will still be way ahead of the curve as far as playing starcraft goes. The main reason that they are that good is because they are so fast, and they are smart so they can get build orders down for all the different stratagies, and can also react to what the opponent is doing. They will still be fast and still be smart playing starcraft 2. Yes they will have to develop new strategies and come up with new build orders to mesmerize. Yes some may not want to put in the effort to come up with and they probably won't be pro in starcraft 2, but for the most part your going to see the same people.

Claiming that they are just against changes because they want to keep their job is silly. With larger changes that effect the overall style of the game, for instance the mineral and gas mechanics you may have an argument. But how fast a unit turns or doesn't turn isn't going to keep them from being good. So in cases like this I think blizzard is right to listen to them. Obviously they shouldn't do everything that the pro's tell them, but at least listen to what they have to say and take it into consideration, since they are the one with the most experience in what is going to make a good e-sport game.

 

My main point was perhaps not put across properly, i used insta turns as perhaps a small example of the general ideology that is dragging starcraft 2 down from an art POV. There are of course the more obvious elements that 'pro sc gamers' like to ***** about.. like the infuriating idea that unit debris will ruin their competitive game. Its crap like that which is already ruining the look of SC2 - if i may draw upon the recent gametrailers videos the death animations are to put it simply, terrible.

And dont tell me that they're still working on them, i know they obviously are, blizzard is known for this. However the animations were present in the Announcment video - now they are removed - and around the time of removal a interview was released where a dev was talking about such debris blocking and ruining the gameplay experience.

And then there is the relevant argument of mbs, etc etc. Im going to have to agree with Tychus to a small degree on this subject: there is indeed a small level of bias - fear of the unknown should also take mention here, the game they love is an ages old 2d based game. What does this say to you about their beliefs on the art side? They dont care. They want gameplay that isnt obscured by graphics, no matter how stupid their assumptions that it will be suggest.

Frankly, i dont think a community that ONLY pays heed to the gameplay aspect should be in any place to be giving blizzard suggestions or making complaints about the art portion of the game.

So yeah. **** them. I wont have my game experiance ruined for the sake of their ill placed fears of what sprouts from their ignorance of new game art.

 

I never said they would be starting from the beginning from a gameplay perspective. My skills from StarCraft have carried over into all other RTS and even into other genres. That wasn't my point. My point was when StarCraft 2 was first announced many of the "Pros" were highly disappointed saying "What? I'm just supposed to start over? I'm supposed to start from ground one in the rankings and disregard everything I've earned?". It's kind of like when Michael Jordan went to baseball. Yeah, people knew he was a great basketball player and respected him for that, but he did not have the ranking and standing that he had when he was a basketball player.

Furthermore, I did not say that the "Pro's" opinions should not be taken into consideration or that they are so far biased that it's useless. I only said that, by default, they are inclined to be more criticizing of the game then those who anticipate it because it's a sequel to a game they loved. So, in essence, I am saying that many of them will start slightly towards the left if you will on the scale of whether this is a worthy successor to Brood War. Meaning that it would take more effort and proving on Blizzard's behalf to show them the same thing that just your average fan would see.

I'm going to assume this wasn't directed at me as well as the rest of the paragraph regarding gameplay mechanics because otherwise you would be preaching to the choir. I've been saying this all along.

So, you're telling me that, if you were a popular musician that had reached mainstream commercial success, you wouldn't disappointed when your fans' tastes change? Look at Rock and Pop stars. Many of them have changed their style so that they could be in the "Country" genre because Country and Hip Hop are about the only things that sell the best. Jessica Simpson is a very good example. She did terrific in the pop charts. But, the music she was making stopped selling because that style of pop music was weening in popularity so she became a Country singer ... and she did terrible. This is what I am saying. Sorry for the confusion if it was my fault.

 

I took a glimpse of the 2 videos from the website and man, SC2 have changed a lot through like...the past 2 months :>
The latest build looks absolutely hamazing XD

 

Babmer.. go ****ing buy C&C 3.. the gameplay's awful but the graphics are nice. You'r gonna love that game, since you only want some eye-candy game.

Why do you think starcraft lasted more than 10 years? Because of it's pretty graphics?

The graphics are suppossed to assist the gameplay, and to work with it. Not the other way around.

Im going to go a step further in here. I dont think it's silly, it's utterly stupid, it's not well though and it's senseless.
These guys know the game is gonna change anyways. And they know Sc1 cant last forever. They ARE gonna try and go for Sc2 anyways, it doesnt matter how many changes it goes through. Maybe they are trying to make the game ressemble Sc1 so they will have their advantage, but apart from that, they are just trying to help the game design. After all, if casual gamers dont like the game, there's not gonna be any e-sport, since that bussines needs lots of advertising to sustain itself, and if no one looks at the pro matches, no one's gonna try to add in those tourneys.

Lastly, I think the Jessica Simpson example was awful

 

Lombar.. What little respect I had for you is dwindling further. I don't mind you disagreeing but you can do so in a much better way. You've been flat-out wrong many, many times and I politely told you that I disagreed with you. I never insulted you or you opinion even though, in my view, it was laughable.

That being said, my point is not an opinion. It is based on articles which "Pros" were quoted in voicing there fears of StarCraft 2. Dare I say that it's logic? Furthermore, neither you nor Crouse understood what I was saying ... Should I insult your reading comprehension, too?

What a terrible poster you are.

http://digitallife.ggl.com/index.php?controller=News&method=article&id=4987

These are a few of the opinions I am talking about. GosuGamer's website is **** and doesn't have a viable way to find news from around the time of StarCraft's announcement so I can't find the exact articles I remember reading but these should suffice. But, again, I'll say, not all Pros are against StarCraft 2. I only said that it would take more on behalf of the game to reach the same level of satisfaction that an average fan would have. Dare I, again, say that this is logic? Other than that, I said many "Pro's" won't like the change because it means a reset of the sport. They've said themselves that they fear what this will mean for them.

-- The Jessica Simpson and the Michael Jordan examples were probably far more accurate than you can comprehend at the moment. I don't blame you for it going over you head because you're apparently so blinded by your own high-and-mighty opinion that you can't see the truth in other's opinion. But, by all means, keep failing, O' Great One With An Opinion!

Also, Lombar, you raped the meanings behind Badmer's post. Congratulations! You truly are blinded.

 

I won't try and argue that the pros aren't afraid of what SC2 will do to them career-wise. But I would argue for the most part they are more worried about SC2 being a viable e-sport, as opposed to where they will fall in the SC2 rankings. I say this simply because if SC2 flops as an e-sport then there really won't be a place to go as a pro. I have to imagine that interest for the original will fall once the new one comes out meaning the SC scene as it is now will be no more. There may still be a SC-BW league but it would be greatly diminished I would think. As such most pros will have to try and make it in SC2 and if that fails they will be out a job. Maybe at that point the original would take off again, but I doubt it would come back to the same level it now is.

Its from this point of view that I am basing most of my opinions on, so maybe that will help everyone understand where I am coming from better when I say that I trust the advice the pros are giving to blizzard, for the most part. Of course blizzard needs to take everything the say with a grain of salt so to speak, as the pros do have an agenda. Yes they are looking out for their jobs, but more in a sense they are trying to make sure there is still a market for their skills. Yes some of them will not be able to make the switch and they know that, but they also know that if there is no pro league then they are all out a job and as such I think for the most part their advice to blizzard truly is in the best interest of SC2 as a e-sport.

Now I would argue that Bamber is looking at SC2 from a personal enjoyment aspect and seems to put more important on graphics and immersion as opposed to game play. While I disagree, and would rather see game play focused on over the how it looks I can't say he is wrong we just share a difference in opinion. And while he comes of as a little extreme towards his dislike of the pros advice to blizzard, I can't fault him there either as what he wants and what the pros want are two very different things.

To Tychus, having read your more recent posts I would agree with a lot of what you said, I thought you had a more extreme opinion after reading one of your earlier posts. As for your music metaphor I see what your getting at but I would argue that this is more like an artist releasing a second album. Both the artist and their aduience change from the first to the second and many artist fail. Similarly the rules are going to change from SC to SC2 and some of the pros won't be able to make the switch, but as long as it succseds as an e-sport many will. Changing generes in music in my opinion would be more akin to a SC pro trying to go pro in Halo, or some other FPS.

In the end blizzard really is in a difficult spot. For SC2 to have the lasting power of the original, and anything less will come across as a failure to many, there will have to be a succseful e-sport league. But for the league to work there has to be a fan base to watch it, meaning the average consumer must enjoy it enough to follow the league. As such blizzard has to please both the pro gamers and people like bomber, I use him as an example but it could be anyone. This is hard to do as both groups have differing priorities in what they want in a game, hopefully blizzard is up to the task.

 

Why did you say my statements were silly if we agree on every point so far in this paragraph? I am only saying that it would take more on Blizzard's/StarCraft 2's behalf to impress them on the level that an average fan would be. So, when they practically **** on the game, you know why. I do, however, value their opinions as far as it's valid but when they claim inferiority just because it's not like StarCraft: Brood War then I do take their opinions with a grain of salt. But, when it's a valid problem with the game then I highly value their opinion. They have wisdom and experience that I don't have despite having played the game for ten years and amassing close to 50,000 Battle.net games [Esimate based on games play since last year]. After all, it was the complainers that made StarCraft what it is today when they caused Blizzard to restart development back in 1996. I owe those complainers a lot. I wish I could thank them personally and shake their hands

I agree. The only part in which I agreed with him on is when it he said something along the lines that the eliteist/pro's opinions are destroying some important parts of the game simply because it's different than StarCraft: Brood War. But, on this subject, I don't think there should be anything that gets in the way of gameplay. Whether it be colors, complex death animations, distracting explosions, annoying physics, or anything else. I've been playing StarCraft since day one and have stayed on Battle.net for nearly 95% of that time. Multiplayer gameplay is very important to me. So, as far as the Pro's valid opinions go, I support them and value them. But, again, when they complain and some times, ultimately, destroy important aspects of the game just because it wasn't how StarCraft: Brood War was then I don't value their opinion and I am angered at certain times.

I was mostly referring to the different audiences and most of what they earned being reset. They're popularity and sucess they had to re-earn in many aspects. Of course, they are "Pop Icons" so they had it easier than a fresh new artist has it but I'm just trying to get a few similiarities across. Jessica Simpson was not a valued Country singer when she began singing in the Country genre though she was a valued "Pop Star". Same with Michael Jordan in baseball. It's a reset. The "Pros" earnings go down (in a large part) when StarCraft goes down. Sure, many will just switch to StarCraft 2 and their skills will remain but they'll have to achieve many things all over again.. kind of like Michael Jordan and Jessica Simpson. My examples were meant to just show some slight similiarities between the situations. They were the best real-life examples that I could come up with in the few minutes it took for me to write that. In summation, many many Pro players whose jobs and careers are based upon StarCraft: Brood War are weary of StarCraft II and all the changes it will bring. I'm not saying they're all against it (This is shown otherwise in the article I linked), I'm just saying they're a little more weary and hard to please when it comes to StarCraft II's development.

Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding. I am sorry if I played a part in it. I also thank you for being a great poster unlike Lombar. I appreciate it. I thanked your post.

 

Ook.. that was a long read.

First of all, I didnt meant to insult you Tychus. I know Im blunt, but I had no idea you were the one that said the other stuff. However, although I wrote that on a rush and did not though what I said, it's still what I think.
It's not my high-and-mighty opinion, it's just my opinion.

It honestly surprises me that what you said was actually real. It's not my fault I though it was just an opinion tho, usually when smart people quotes, they put the source. You'll learn this when you reach the age of 18 if you are lucky enough. That aside, I think I understimated the "jobs" of the progamers. I know they do a lot of money with it, but I never considered it a job, so understand my inocence thinking they will be hoping for the best of the game instead of their personal opinions. I still find kinda retarded to actually admit they are flaming the game based on personal skills, but that's not our problem.

I agree with this a lot. Maybe you couldnt express yourself right at your first posts Tychus. Please try to see how these two statments of yours greatly differs.

Or what about these ones..

Im not gonna do a huge quoting post, but I guess you get the big picture.

Regarding to me raping babmer's post... Im guessing my reading comprehension should be insulted here, but I stupidly though he was trying to say that the pros only focus on the gameplay and that their opinions shouldnt be so valued because they leave other aspects of the game (he mainly talked about graphics but I guess sound, general ambientation, story and/or replayability could be included) would've left behind if Blizzard only listened to them. Or wait.. is that what they'r trying to say? :S Im so confused now. Sorry Im not that smart Tychus, but please elaborate on how am I that blinded, because I think what I answered (The graphics are suppossed to assist the gameplay, and to work with it. Not the other way around.) was not that crazy to what I understood he posted.

Lastly.. Usually when you'r trying to make someone look bad pointing he's a terrible poster (blah,blah,blah..) one would guess you wouldnt go down to his level and do a terrible post yourself. It's so weird that what you did right after mine was even worse, since not only you criticize me for not having read some quotes you never posted, but also claiming things (like saying Im blind) without even explaining yourself
I know Im really blunt and I dont usually think a lot what I write, but that doesnt mean you have to be like that too

Again, not trying to call you names or anything, just "blindly" (and I have to give you that since I just read last 4 posts and replied) gave an opinion.. which after reading everything I still maintain.

PD: I still think the example of J. Simpson is awful. I understand it, I just dont like it. I find those kind of examples useles.. I mean, it's like if you were explaining to little kids, we already understand what you say without you comparing a computer game with soccer or a pop singer

 

Ahem..

You are still missing the basic idea.
Where have i stated that graphcis should come first? I AGREE that the graphics should assist the gameplay and my argument was that this balance of graphics and gameplay WAS NOT TRUELY being upheld.

The fact is, pro gamers are removing elements of the art portion of the game out of a jerk reaction fear that they will affect their gameplay. However the majority (did you see my examples?) will have NO effect on gameplay.

Dont tell me what to do or buy, i never stated i only wanted eye candy. I stated that the gameplay aspect was being driven off course by a MINORITY yes a damn minority of people who will buy the game and play as an e-sport.

Please dont make such IGNORANT posts when you dont even understand my argument.

 

*sigh*

Lombar proves he's a terrible poster once again. I'm not going to continue with this because it's dangerously close to a flame war. But, I will say this, those quotes you posted weren't contradictory. They were only two sides of how I feel. I said I value the Pro's opinions when it is valid; not when it simply is against anything different. Then, I said that Pro's opinions are valued too much because more often than not this is the case. These are not contradictory statements. Surely you can see now. They are merely two sides of my opinion. Also, the second quote sums up what I was saying pretty well. There's no way it is contradictory. But, if you don't mind me asking, what are you inferring from these, because, clearly, it's not how I meant it to be. Maybe, I should just edit it for future readers or try to not repeat that problem in the future.

I did explain myself. You insult other's opinions and call them "stupid" when they are valid opinions. There's nothing wrong with them other than you do not share them. You flame and insult them. That's blinded. You value your opinion over other's; "not thinking" or "blunt" or not. It's a terrible posting habit. You've done it in the past so I call you a terrible poster. You should take notes from Crouse. He's a much better poster. Even if his second post had been entirely disagreeing with me, I would have valued it because he respected my opinion. You did not.

But, let's drop this. If you continue with this I will Ignore List you. I've had many of these over the years on GameFAQs and other trashy forums. I will not bring this forum to that level.

You missed the point. I said you are blinded by your own high-and-mighty opinion and cannot respect other's because you value yours too highly. Gaaaah.... Why did I continue with this ...

That's the problem. Crouse did not know what I was saying. He said so himself. My example was only to give the best real-life example I could think of at the time to show what I meant. Speak for yourself when you want to say things such as this. But, as far as you understanding things ... Where did I say anything about soccer? Nevermind, don't answer that. It's an understandible error (I guess.) and it would be pointless to continue this. Again, get back on subject whilst not flaming and I will not Ignore List you.

What? This doesn't even make sense. What I have been saying has never changed. Also, even if what you were saying was true, I did not go the route of saying your opinion is idiotic, stupid, imbecilic or otherwise insulting your opinion. That's the lowest of the lows when it comes to posting, in my opinion. I couldn't possibly have sunk to your level in my post, again, even if what you were saying was completely true.

-- For your information, Lombar. I will be 20 in a few months. Nice failing assumption. Furthermore, those quotes you are talking about are extremely hard to find because GosuGamers.net website is **** and doesn't have a viable search function once the news is a few weeks old. I tried my best to get it and failed at that time. Later, I found the link that I posted.

-- You got me on the Babmer contradiction, though. He didn't use proper paragraph form so I jumped around his post randomly and, apparently, missed a few key sentences. That's my fault. I apologize. That is probably where a lot of this confusion comes from. I'm sincerely sorry.