The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Deus Siddis on April 02, 2006, 07:05:47 am



Title: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 02, 2006, 07:05:47 am
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/worldofstarcraft/index.html?q=world%20of%20starcraft

Apparently they're putting those ghost models to good use. Still, this is just another thing keeping Starcraft 2 or Starcraft Battlefront away from me! Bastards!

Anywho, what do you think of it? Do you see yourself signing up?


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: NameWithheld on April 02, 2006, 08:17:54 am
That's an April fools prank.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Cronos on April 02, 2006, 09:54:54 am
Never believe anything you see or hear on April 1st. Ever.


Title: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 02, 2006, 05:04:51 pm
Ah, shit. . .I forgot. I let my fanboyism for Starcraft blind my judgement.

No longer worthy of the Khala's light, I must now walk the path of shame toward Shakuras and banishment from credibility.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: guesst on April 04, 2006, 01:05:06 am
Dude, you fell for it? Duuuude! Those screen shots were so faked. How could you not see through them?

I guess it's true. There is one born every minute.


Title: I can them in there. . .laughing at me. . .Bastards!
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 04, 2006, 03:04:11 pm
Yes, I fell for it. I never remember when it's april fool's day. Plus, I thought blizzard didn't want to waste the art resources they made for the now canceled starcraft ghost, so they just put them into WOS.

You've got to keep in mind that I'm a starcraft fan, forsaken by blizzard and its evil warcraft obsession. I didn't really like the idea of ghost, but when it was canceled, it was just another blow, leaving us fans hurt and alone in the darkness of gamelessness. I jumped at the first sign of hope. . .and was again betrayed. In the words of Captain Raynor, "This is Bullshit ! "


Title: Re: I can them in there. . .laughing at me. . .Bastards!
Post by: guesst on April 04, 2006, 06:22:57 pm
You've got to keep in mind that I'm a starcraft fan, forsaken by blizzard and its evil warcraft obsession. I didn't really like the idea of ghost, but when it was canceled, it was just another blow, leaving us fans hurt and alone in the darkness of gamelessness. I jumped at the first sign of hope. . .and was again betrayed. In the words of Captain Raynor, "This is Bullshit ! "

You're a fan of StarCraft, abandoned by it's creators. You're a fan of Star Control, abandoned by it's creators (for a decade and a half now). Is there any other lost causes you root for?


Title: World of Star-
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 04, 2006, 10:22:46 pm
Starflight, Starcontrol, Starcraft. If it starts with "star" and was abandoned, I root for it. Except for Starfight 6, I can't get that to run on XP, so I've never had a chance to play it. There's also Battlezone, which starts with "battle," but I root for it anyway. They should really rename it to "Starzone."


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Halleck on April 12, 2006, 09:52:58 am
Blizzard should stop the pussyfooting routine and start working on Starcraft 2. I have no idea what's holding them back now.

Also- who says that starcraft is "abandoned"? It's probably their most successful game ever. Just because they haven't expanded the franchise yet doesn't mean they never will.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 12, 2006, 03:37:30 pm
I think you were right, Halleck, Blizzard is afraid that Starcraft has been raised on such a high pedastel now, that Starcraft 2 might not meet fan's expectations. I think they want to at least get out one non-rts starcraft game to get some juice out of us first.

If they make it a console/pc Battlefield '42 / SW Battlefront type game, then I think that will be a very good move. Those games are like RTS played from a mostly action oriented perspective.

You could have Marines/Firebats/Ghosts/(Medics?), Zerglings/Hydralisks/Infesteds/(Broodlings?), and Zealots/High Templar/Dark Templar/(Ranged Unit?) for infantry.

Then, at spawn points, there could be unmanned Vultures/Goliaths/Arclites/Wraiths, mutation pods (or whatever) for Defilers/Mutalisks/Ultralisks/Scorge, and possessable Dragoons/Reavers/Archons/Scouts or Corsairs.

There could also be larger things that a few players could man (pilot, gunner, etc.,) like  battlecruisers, Carriers, Valkyries, Devourers, etc.

All with Xbox 360 level computing power. Damnit Blizzard, there's so much you can do with this universe, Warcraft sucks, get off your asses!


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: NECRO-99 on April 17, 2006, 09:53:25 am
World of Starcraft...
I'd make a Terran Firebat with a stimpak addiction. ;D


Title: Re: World of Star-
Post by: Cronos on April 22, 2006, 10:38:43 am
Starflight, Starcontrol, Starcraft. If it starts with "star" and was abandoned, I root for it. Except for Starfight 6, I can't get that to run on XP, so I've never had a chance to play it. There's also Battlezone, which starts with "battle," but I root for it anyway. They should really rename it to "Starzone."

Ah yes, Battlezone was a classic. Battlezone 2 was trash though.

My pet lost cause is the System Shock series. If you've never tried the game at all, may Shodan, your god, have pity on your pathetic soul, insect...


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 22, 2006, 11:56:20 am
Quote
Ah yes, Battlezone was a classic. Battlezone 2 was trash though.

I think you have that backwards. Battlezone 1 = Micro-Management + Overly Generic Units + Useless Artillery Units + Never enough of any resource = Inferior to sequel.

If only BZ2 had been given another 6 months of developement, it would have launched the action/strategy genre. Maybe BF 2141 will pick up the flag with its commander mode.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Cronos on April 22, 2006, 03:07:23 pm
Quote
Ah yes, Battlezone was a classic. Battlezone 2 was trash though.

I think you have that backwards. Battlezone 1 = Micro-Management + Overly Generic Units + Useless Artillery Units + Never enough of any resource = Inferior to sequel.

If only BZ2 had been given another 6 months of developement, it would have launched the action/strategy genre. Maybe BF 2141 will pick up the flag with its commander mode.

I'll give you that point on the useless artillery, but the rest is bunk imho. The Micro-management made every unit important, the units were unique and diverse and each had their uses. The Razor scout for a fast cheap assault, the bobcat for a cheap light tank, the grizzly for a good all rounder, the minelayer as useful defense etc etc.

Limited resources forced the player to play resourcefully and promoted active fighting. It forced you to relocate actively rather then turtling down in one location, giving a dynamic feel to the entire game. Dont like the start location? Up and Move! Dont like the Start location in BZ2? You're screwed.

The storyline in BZ was far better told, it felt more epic. You really felt like you were part of an army fighting against those damned commy pinko's.

The ISDF as a whole was uninspiring. Orange orange and more orange. Battlezone featured painted hulls that screamed the patriotism of whomever created the vehicle. Sure the ISDF was international but something a little more creative then just "Orange" would have been nice.

But I do agree with you on the development path. If BZ2 had had more time in development it definitely could have been a much better game.

In seperate but related news, Natural Selection, a Half Life 1 TC That breaks the engines boundaries (http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/) took up the flag of FPS/RTS gameplay and has not only done so incredibly well, but has done so with assymetrical teams (Team 1 is not a clone of Team 2 in other words).

The site and forums get continually hacked, but you can still download and play the mod if you own HL1. It's also still in development, meaning it does have a future and the site should be coming back soon (though we've been hearing soon for quite some time).


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 23, 2006, 06:56:07 am
Quote
Limited resources forced the player to play resourcefully and promoted active fighting.

More like it forced you to run all the way back to your repair and ammo bays (if you were lucky enough to have them, and why do you need two bays?,) because the ammo costs would bleed you dry during active fighting if you used your armory (the armory just provides tidbits off ammo, from your precious little reserve of scrap.)


Quote
Dont like the start location? Up and Move! Dont like the Start location in BZ2? You're screwed.

This could have been a point for BZ1, if it were completely true. Your expensive and important permanent structures would be left behind. You can't really move around, without leaving most of your base behind. Plus the geysers ment you had little choice in how you deployed your core structures. Often you'd have to spread out your base over a vast territory. Having a mobile base would have been great for either game, but such a feature was not implemented on BZ or its sequel.


Quote
The ISDF as a whole was uninspiring. Orange orange and more orange. Battlezone featured painted hulls that screamed the patriotism of whomever created the vehicle. Sure the ISDF was international but something a little more creative then just "Orange" would have been nice.

But the geometry was interesting. For example, the Rocket Tank, Missile Scout and ISDF Walker were all very interesting and original designs.


Quote
But I do agree with you on the development path. If BZ2 had had more time in development it definitely could have been a much better game.

Yes, Activision probably rushed pandemic to get something out, before it was done. Hopefully, they will have more patience for the possible next Star Control game.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Cronos on April 23, 2006, 10:21:39 am
I disagree on the point of walkers. Although the sasquatch from BZ1 was equal in terms of looks to the Atilla (IE, crap), the soviet Golems were awe inspiring and frightening when you first encountered them.

My biggest psychological kick in the pants, so to speak, from BZ 2 was the introduction of tracked vehicles. It didnt fit in at all with the original design paradigms behind the units from BZ 1, which was maximum manouverability. Sure, utility vehicles dont NEED manouverability but terrain navigation was made much simpler. Also, a small puddle of water would have the unfortunate effect of destroying your last mobile scavenger...

It just seemed to be a de-evolution in my eyes, one that rubbed me the wrong way =\

Your final point kinda reminds me of System Shock 2 a little. A great game that was forced to put in a half assed and cheesy ending. I wont give it away but it really felt like a kick in the teeth.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 23, 2006, 01:55:53 pm
Quote
the soviet Golems were awe inspiring and frightening when you first encountered them.

Were Golems the ones with bell-bottoms or am I thinking of a different game?


Quote
My biggest psychological kick in the pants, so to speak, from BZ 2 was the introduction of tracked vehicles. It didnt fit in at all with the original design paradigms behind the units from BZ 1, which was maximum manouverability.

Not so, only early on in BZ1 was the "mobility is king" mind set how things worked. With the appearance of walkers midway through BZ1, ground vehicles (whether they have legs or treads) became part of the universe's extra-terrestrial combat. Treads have a number of advantages over Legs and vice versa.


Quote
Also, a small puddle of water would have the unfortunate effect of destroying your last mobile scavenger...

Treaded vehicles should have been allowed to move underwater, as walkers can. That was a pointless design issue.


Quote
It just seemed to be a de-evolution in my eyes, one that rubbed me the wrong way =\

I played BZ2 first, then BZ1, so I suppose I see the weaknesses in the first game more.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Cronos on April 23, 2006, 02:42:24 pm
Fraid I cant find a picture of the soviet Golem, it first appears in the venusian mission where you're allies get trashed by just one of them (second mission in if I recall).

The walkers I could always accept as part of Battlezone. They made sense. It was the tracked vehicles in the second one that ticked me off. The only advantage that I could see a tracked vehicle having over a hover vehicle is that it might be able to traverse steeper terrain, a difficulty easily overcome by jump thrusters.

There were also some missions that failed to live up to expectations going from BZ1 -> 2. For instance, the solo mission on Mire where you have to get back to your base. Although nicely done, it just didnt do justice to the mission it was trying to emulate from BZ1, the mission on Europa where you have to snipe a soviet pilot, complete his patrol run (posing as a soviet) and the absolutely crapping yourself when you were found out and had to escape with dozens of soviets on your tail.

Another thing that comes to mind as a dissapointment was the sattelite view. In BZ 1, it was a simplified terrain grid, accessible from anywhere (provided you had a comsat station, which for the NSDF was one of the coolest structures) from which you could issue orders and so forth without having to be on location.

In BZ 2, you had comsat bunkers, which while nice, made the sattelite view unpalatable and less practical.

I can see where you're coming from though. Going backwards you do see certain annoying flaws of the original in a somewhat harsher light. Going forwards from the original to the sequel, all I can see is all that anticipation and expectation having been shattered. When I completed both endings to BZ2, all I felt was a tremendous dissapointment. When I finished BZ1, I felt a tremendous thrill, sobered and sharpened by the ending.

And thats another thing (insert collective groan :P). Cooke from BZ2 had flat and uninspired dialogue for each mission load, every single time. "Grizzly 1" from BZ1 sounded like he'd been through hell and back, like he'd been in a war.

On it's own BZ2 might have stood up fine. But from the perspective and expectations of having played the original, it felt dissapointing. I guess I'm bitter about it =\


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 23, 2006, 01:14:49 am
Quote
Fraid I cant find a picture of the soviet Golem

http://www.planetbattlezone.com/battlezone/units.shtml

Yea, the legs look a little funky. Sort of like the rhino-whatever in BZ2, on Bane. Too narrow at the top and too wide at the bottom. I prefer the Atilla.


Quote
The walkers I could always accept as part of Battlezone. They made sense. It was the tracked vehicles in the second one that ticked me off. The only advantage that I could see a tracked vehicle having over a hover vehicle is that it might be able to traverse steeper terrain, a difficulty easily overcome by jump thrusters.

You could make the same arguement against the tall, bipedal walkers. The treaded vehicles are heavy weaponry, like the walkers. They trade mobility for armor and firepower.


Quote
Although nicely done, it just didnt do justice to the mission it was trying to emulate from BZ1, the mission on Europa where you have to snipe a soviet pilot, complete his patrol run (posing as a soviet) and the absolutely crapping yourself when you were found out and had to escape with dozens of soviets on your tail.

I found the biggest difficulty was finding the damn waypoints in those europan trenches. The onslaught of guards was secondary. It felt more like a field recon than a spy mission.


Quote
Another thing that comes to mind as a dissapointment was the sattelite view. In BZ 1, it was a simplified terrain grid, accessible from anywhere (provided you had a comsat station, which for the NSDF was one of the coolest structures) from which you could issue orders and so forth without having to be on location.
In BZ 2, you had comsat bunkers, which while nice, made the sattelite view unpalatable and less practical.

I think it was a strike against BZ2 that you had to get inside a bunker to enter satellite view, but I don't think wireframe is such a step up. C&C wouldn't be very fun from wireframe.


Quote
On it's own BZ2 might have stood up fine. But from the perspective and expectations of having played the original, it felt dissapointing. I guess I'm bitter about it =\

I do think it would have done better under a different title, within a different universe. I like to think of them this way- as separate games. It isn't hard, given their plots don't mesh real well.


Title: Re: World of Starcraft
Post by: Halleck on April 24, 2006, 06:31:38 pm
For some reason I never liked satellite view in either game... you should have been able to use it as a command interface like starcraft, but I found it only really worked as a different view and it was actually harder to control your units sometimes.

Yes, both battlezone games have their weaknesses, but they are both fun and rather original. I don't think I'll participate in the debate any more than saying that.  :)

Oh yeah, and golems scare the shit out of you in BZ1.