15 New Starcraft Ghost Screens [Archive]

Spooky

12-01-2005, 07:47 AM

Shame.

This title's development history is one of the most dissapointing in memory. The graphics look more than a little rough and it seems to have been (once-again) refocsed towards that of a third-person shooter experience.

What I don't understand is that if Blizzard owns the intellectual property rights to developr Starcraft: Ghost then why can't they develop Starcraft?

Vandenh

12-01-2005, 07:50 AM

I have a bad feeling about this....

>can't they develop Starcraft?

Dude it is 100% certain they will do that soon.

Spooky

12-01-2005, 07:51 AM

People have been saying its 100% certain that Starcraft is in the development pipe for quite literally half a decade. Every single E3 or trade expo in which blizzard is going to make an announcement occurs people are convinced it will be Starcraft.

Morratut

12-01-2005, 07:56 AM

Star wha?

/shrugs and looks ahead.

ÜberJumper

12-01-2005, 08:02 AM

Duh, they're totally working on Starcraft 2. But if they give out any info... ANY info, they're giving their competition big clues... not like anyone's not going to get starcraft 2 right off the bat.

Murtaug

12-01-2005, 08:04 AM

What I don't get, Ghost aside, why Blizzard has not made a sequel to Starcraft. It is painfully obvious that people want it. Blizzard could release shit in a box with "Starcraft 2" written on it in sharpie, and people would eat it with a spoon. I played, enjoyed, and grew tired of Starcraft a long time ago, and a sequel really does not excite me. I just do not get what is taking them so long getting something out there that people obviously really want.

Venkman

12-01-2005, 08:12 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!

Abednigo

12-01-2005, 08:15 AM

I don't even remember what system this was suppose to come out for.

I remember reading awhile ago that World of Diablo was in the works, along with a Starcraft 2.

Abednigo

12-01-2005, 08:17 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!

While that would certainly be cool, do you think it's what Starcraft fans want? I think they'd rather have another Starcraft RTS before an MMO in that universe. We got 3 Warcraft games before WoW. They owe us at least 1 more Starcraft RTS before WoS. :)

LilEvilFish

12-01-2005, 08:18 AM

I believe one of the giant spider mechs from Supreme Commander stood on the development house and flattened the game. No one noticed.

Savok

12-01-2005, 08:34 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!
Wouldn't work.

And those screens look better then the previous ones at least.

OUX

12-01-2005, 08:41 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!

DAMN YOU!! YOU SHOULD BE MARKING MY WORDS (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4435&page=2&pp=10&highlight=world+of+Starcraft) !! :D

total

12-01-2005, 08:47 AM

Seems like Blizzard has too much on their hands with WoW. The hype for this game is long dead. If they ever do release it, I only see the Blizz fanboys picking it up.

What is amazing is that the original Starcraft is still played today at a TON of lans. How many games from 1998 do you know of that still hold gamers the way this one does?

So as many in this forum have already asked; why not release a damn sequal?

Exodus

12-01-2005, 09:00 AM

Wouldn't work.

And those screens look better then the previous ones at least.

It would actually :)

anyway, she looks a lot better than ones previous, think that was under a different development team too. and yah, I kinda had this problem where I didn't look at much else except her ass.. yah.. sorry.. it just couldn't be helped :(

Selar

12-01-2005, 09:18 AM

They should've shown her standing next to Duke Nukem...

derjester

12-01-2005, 09:34 AM

I don't even remember what system this was suppose to come out for.

I remember reading awhile ago that World of Diablo was in the works, along with a Starcraft 2.
Yeah, that was posted by some "Insider" on wowguru. He said SC2, and Diablo 3 were going to be announced at Blizzcon. Of course those 2 games are in the works, what else are they going to work on? A new unproven franchise?
I think SC2 is going to have a huge step in advancing RTS. War3 brought a lot of changes to RTS that no other game really did. SC2 is bound to be groundbreaking the way War 3 was.
SC:Ghost is awesome. I played it as much as I could at Blizzcon. Every seat was always taken all the time. The multiplayer is just awesome, and what I've seen of the SP game, it is also awesome. You can be stealthly and sneaky, or run around guns blazing. It's a lot of fun.
I just hope it doesn't get lost in the shuffle to 360.

StoneGut

12-01-2005, 09:40 AM

Looks good to me.. Can't wait to play it!

total

12-01-2005, 09:51 AM

War3 brought a lot of changes to RTS that no other game really did.

What exactly was advanced in Warcraft 3? It seemed identical to Warcraft 2 with the addition of heroes.

NACIONAL

12-01-2005, 10:01 AM

What exactly was advanced in Warcraft 3? It seemed identical to Warcraft 2 with the addition of heroes.

and less units at a time!

One of the great things about starcraft was the good quantity of units you copuld have at any given time.... mmm those 150-marine raids were delicious!

DoubleUranium

12-01-2005, 10:20 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!

That would be the worst possible news to me. You might as well shoot a dog while you're at it. I just want an RTS with the standard awesome battle.net support, not some subscription RPG. They could single handedly reunite North & South Korea if they released Starcract 2.

TheKeck

12-01-2005, 10:28 AM

What exactly was advanced in Warcraft 3? It seemed identical to Warcraft 2 with the addition of heroes.

This just boggles my mind on so many levels. Unfortunately, I don't care enough to take it further than that.

The Iron Weasel

12-01-2005, 10:32 AM

These screens are looking ALOT better then the last batch.

Wyrm

12-01-2005, 10:34 AM

Warcraft 3 wasnt revolutionary. Like most Blizzard games, it does a whole lot of things that other games do, but it does them a whole lot better, with a better story, a better presentation, and it's easier to jump in and start playing.

I'm personally fine with anything they release. I'm a die hard blizz fanboy. I will probably like Starcraft Ghost. I have always wanted a sequel though, which is kind of why this sort of thing makes me mad.

They will put it out at some point though, and I will tell you right now, it will sell just as well, if not better, than the first. Every Starcraft fan I've known, even people who stopped playing games after they got tired of SC, they would go out, buy it, and do whatever it takes to their computer to be able to play a new one. Starcraft has that power.

Doctor Setebos

12-01-2005, 10:49 AM

I don't even remember what system this was suppose to come out for.Well, it was supposed to come out on the GC, in addition to the Xbox and PS2. But after development hit 3 years and 2 developers, they thwacked the GC version, and are going with the popular consoles only.

And actually, I'm a bit glad they did. Doesn't look like much to me.

I'd also heard a 360 version in the works, as well, but that was only unsubstantiated rumor at the time.

Magnanimous Gnome

12-01-2005, 10:50 AM

I really didn't like Warcraft 3 all that much. The changes were just too much for me, especially the focus on tiny little groups of units instead of actual armies. Didn't feel like a war at all to me - more like a schoolyard fight or something.

I really don't think that they are going to release World of... Starcraft of Diablo anytime soon. If you honestly think about it, releasing either of those would probably hurt Blizzard financially. They'd be competing with World of Warcraft. World of Starcraft or Diablo will come out when World of Warcraft starts to wane in popularity. That or they will then just release WoW 2.

KarmaGhost

12-01-2005, 10:52 AM

Those screens remind me of Command & Conquer: Renegade.

I'd have to say, that's a bad thing...

eatme

12-01-2005, 11:01 AM

Man, I'd kill just for a Starcraft 1.5. Take Starcraft, fix the unit AI, add matchmaking to battle.net for it, and add the interface improvements in War3. Awesome.

Abash Alarmist

12-01-2005, 11:15 AM

There is no way that World of StarCraft would work. It would probably be a MMOFPS with real time action, and that is not networking feasible until Internet2 comes out. There is just not enough available bandwidth to do something like that on a server similar to the size of World of Warcraft.

Captain Awesome

12-01-2005, 11:36 AM

World of Starcraft. Mark my words!

The problem with that design is that it would dip into their WOW market. And like most companies if they were smart will not make a competing title to take on their own.

Krull

12-01-2005, 11:40 AM

Man, I'd kill just for a Starcraft 1.5. Take Starcraft, fix the unit AI, add matchmaking to battle.net for it, and add the interface improvements in War3. Awesome.

I take it you have not seen this then? Starcraft Revolution (http://revolution.wc3campaigns.com/index.php) :D

Maskatron

12-01-2005, 11:43 AM

I have a bad feeling about this....

>can't they develop Starcraft?

Dude it is 100% certain they will do that soon.

ROTFLMAO - remember, you're talking about Blizzard here. They don't do anything "soon". :D

Oblivion

12-01-2005, 11:43 AM

Ghost_Saint

12-01-2005, 12:20 PM

You guys forget. No Blizzard game has ever had top notch graphics. In fact they've always been a bit lacking on the graphical side. Diablo 2, and even Starcraft was below the graphical curve of it's time, but that didn't stop these games from dominating.

As long as the gameplay is supurb, which I would expect no less from blizzard, and the story is good, I will play this thing with my heart on my sleave.

The Iron Weasel

12-01-2005, 12:22 PM

DeadPixel

12-01-2005, 12:24 PM

Blizzard could release shit in a box with "Starcraft 2" written on it in sharpie, and people would eat it with a spoon. I played, enjoyed, and grew tired of Starcraft a long time ago, and a sequel really does not excite me. I just do not get what is taking them so long getting something out there that people obviously really want.

I think you just answered your own question.

========================================

And to those people who think World of Startcraft would not work due to competition with WoW. How can this possibly hurt Blizzard? Both games would bring more revenue to the SAME company. Releasing WoS along with WoW would only broaden the spectrum of game themes to anyone looking for a Sci-Fi MMO with Blizzard's polish. Besides the engine is already there, they just need to redo the skill system and content, which of course is a HUGE task with a lot of potential.

Other companies do this all the time, just look at PEPSI or COKE.

Carnisaur

12-01-2005, 12:33 PM

I really find it hard to get excited about this game anymore. Doesn't Blizzard realize that these outrageous development cycles tend to kill hype for a game? Most people have probably forgot this game even existed, or just no longer care.

Zanzibar

12-01-2005, 12:38 PM

err, Planetside?

AIEEE!!! MUST you bring that game up? Heartbreakingly close to an amazing game. Best 4 days of gaming I've ever played.

Then I woke up, and all of the amazing work my faction had done to conquer three continents was gone. Then we did it again. Went to bed. Woke up. Repeat ad nauseum.

It just didn't have any sense of 'front lines', nor any real reward for conquering a planet. If they had implemented a few of the ideas from WoW then I think it would have been stellar. As it is, any fighting to take over a base was worthless because you just knew that the base was going to get re-conquered later.

eatme

12-01-2005, 12:40 PM

I take it you have not seen this then? Starcraft Revolution (http://revolution.wc3campaigns.com/index.php) :D

omfgwtfzergrush!

http://revolution.wc3campaigns.com/gallery.php?act=ent&id=45

OMFG!

Thanks for link.

Now I'm going to hound these guys endlessly until they release it.

Fuck it, I'll just quit my day job and help out. :)

Abash Alarmist

12-01-2005, 12:46 PM

err, Planetside?

That is a perfect example why it wouldn't work. The maps and servers were excruciatingly small compared to that of WoW, and even then, it was laggy as hell. The thing is with these types of games, one would need to feel immersive. You are one of thousands of terran/zerg/protoss soldiers. There should be huge battles, frontlines, battlecruisers, tank embattlements, bunkers, carriers, zerglings, hydralisk, dark templar...All of this with 20k or so players in a non laggy service Internet1? Nice Dream

OUX

12-01-2005, 12:47 PM

You guys forget. No Blizzard game has ever had top notch graphics. In fact they've always been a bit lacking on the graphical side. Diablo 2, and even Starcraft was below the graphical curve of it's time, but that didn't stop these games from dominating.

Blizzard has NEVER had bad graphics, they have STYLE. There is a substatial difference between level of realism and bad graphics. They never try to do the high detail on what they have done before because it didn't fit in with their theme. Ghost looks to be their first foray into the graphical aspect but even then you can look at it an see blizzard written all over it.

total

12-01-2005, 12:49 PM

This just boggles my mind on so many levels. Unfortunately, I don't care enough to take it further than that.

Well thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Warcraft 3 wasnt revolutionary. Like most Blizzard games, it does a whole lot of things that other games do, but it does them a whole lot better, with a better story, a better presentation, and it's easier to jump in and start playing.

I'm personally fine with anything they release. I'm a die hard blizz fanboy. I will probably like Starcraft Ghost. I have always wanted a sequel though, which is kind of why this sort of thing makes me mad.

They will put it out at some point though, and I will tell you right now, it will sell just as well, if not better, than the first. Every Starcraft fan I've known, even people who stopped playing games after they got tired of SC, they would go out, buy it, and do whatever it takes to their computer to be able to play a new one. Starcraft has that power.

Thank you for actually giving me a decent response. I'm not trying to start a flame war here with anyone. I just caught someone saying how revolutionary Warcraft 3 was when I personally thought it was the weakest Blizzard game released. I started thinking that maybe I missed something. I enjoyed Warcraft 3 as much as the next guy but I couldn't find anything revolutionary about it. Of course this is coming from a guy who rarely plays single player anything; I am more of a multiplayer guy. I guess I could have missed something there maybe?

The Iron Weasel

12-01-2005, 12:51 PM

AIEEE!!! MUST you bring that game up? Heartbreakingly close to an amazing game. Best 4 days of gaming I've ever played.

Then I woke up, and all of the amazing work my faction had done to conquer three continents was gone. Then we did it again. Went to bed. Woke up. Repeat ad nauseum.

It just didn't have any sense of 'front lines', nor any real reward for conquering a planet. If they had implemented a few of the ideas from WoW then I think it would have been stellar. As it is, any fighting to take over a base was worthless because you just knew that the base was going to get re-conquered later.

Yeah, that game was just so close to being phenominal.

total

12-01-2005, 01:17 PM

Blizzard has NEVER had bad graphics, they have STYLE. There is a substatial difference between level of realism and bad graphics. They never try to do the high detail on what they have done before because it didn't fit in with their theme. Ghost looks to be their first foray into the graphical aspect but even then you can look at it an see blizzard written all over it.

Ummm...WoW seems pretty heavy on the graphics side of things.

OUX

12-01-2005, 01:24 PM

Ummm...WoW seems pretty heavy on the graphics side of things.

It is a beautiful game but it doesn't have the high res that games like HL2 do.

TheKeck

12-01-2005, 01:47 PM

Well thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Thank you for actually giving me a decent response. I'm not trying to start a flame war here with anyone. I just caught someone saying how revolutionary Warcraft 3 was when I personally thought it was the weakest Blizzard game released. I started thinking that maybe I missed something. I enjoyed Warcraft 3 as much as the next guy but I couldn't find anything revolutionary about it. Of course this is coming from a guy who rarely plays single player anything; I am more of a multiplayer guy. I guess I could have missed something there maybe?

You're welcome. :p

Nobody said that WarCraft 3 was revolutionary. They said it was groundbreaking and brought a lot of changes to RTS. You can argue this if you like, but the comment that boggled my mind was

It seemed identical to Warcraft 2 with the addition of heroes.

That's just ludicrous. Obviously, the graphics in 3 were lightyears ahead of 2. The two races in WarCraft 2 were identical except for a FEW of the spells. Warcraft 3 had four distinct races with very few parallels across them. (You may say that StarCraft started the trend of having multiple non-parallel races, but it doesn't negate the fact that WarCraft 3 and 2 are vastly different in this aspect.) WarCraft 2 had naval warfare and the collection of oil. WarCraft 3 had tons of improvements to the interface. You mentioned the inclusion of heros, but you make is sound as if this is something trivial, which I don't believe is.

Is that enough to add something to the conversation?

Royal Fool

12-01-2005, 01:50 PM

It is very certain that Blizzard are working on new games for all of these franchises. They're just not revealing anything until they feel they're ready... I think they realize how often they have burned themselves and their reputation with early announcements.

Remember when StarCraft got pushed back? Remember when Lord of the Clans was cancelled? Remember when Diablo II was pushed back? Remember when Warcraft III's races and overall gameplay concepts were totally changed? And they even managed to do the same things with Starcraft: Ghost.

Luckily they largely avoided things like that with WoW, and my guess is that they'll be focusing more on keeping things secret until it's safe to reveal them. It's just too bad that Blizzard has totally changed since WoW's release...

The Iron Weasel

12-01-2005, 02:00 PM

That's just ludicrous. Obviously, the graphics in 3 were lightyears ahead of 2. The two races in WarCraft 2 were identical except for a FEW of the spells. Warcraft 3 had four distinct races with very few parallels across them. (You may say that StarCraft started the trend of having multiple non-parallel races, but it doesn't negate the fact that WarCraft 3 and 2 are vastly different in this aspect.) WarCraft 2 had naval warfare and the collection of oil. WarCraft 3 had tons of improvements to the interface. You mentioned the inclusion of heros, but you make is sound as if this is something trivial, which I don't believe is.

Is that enough to add something to the conversation?
Count it!

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

CapnBob

12-01-2005, 02:57 PM

Duh, they're totally working on Starcraft 2. But if they give out any info... ANY info, they're giving their competition big clues... not like anyone's not going to get starcraft 2 right off the bat.

You want the info that the "competition" might use? Ok, there will be new races. One will be a race of machine slaves from the distant past, stripped of their flesh by malevolent star gods and re-awakened to harvest life from the galaxy once more. Another will be a new technologically-advanced growing empire of different species, cooperating for the greater good. The Terrans, Protoss and Zerg will get new unit types and if Blizzard is feeling REALLY creative they'll add in chaotic invaders from beyond realspace that include corrupted Terran and Protoss units... maybe even a barbaric race of scavengers with green skin who love war for the sake of war. Does that sound about right?

Murmillo

12-01-2005, 03:27 PM

The problem with that design is that it would dip into their WOW market. And like most companies if they were smart will not make a competing title to take on their own.
Do you think Blizzard would care how much it dips into the WoW market if it means the death of nearly ever other MMO out there.

jwbxx

12-01-2005, 04:23 PM

This just boggles my mind on so many levels. Unfortunately, I don't care enough to take it further than that.Wc3 is a great game, it does most things right.

But wc3 didnt do anything revolutionary. You could even say it's a step backwards from wc2 and sc, because of its skirmish like battles. Instead of the massive battles we get in sc and wc2. Heroes, one can list a laundry list of complaints on how it ruins the gameplay.

But anyways, sc2 will not live up the huge expectations we put it up to. For years we have been waiting for this game, and once we get it. It'll probably be one fucking awesome game, but it wont live up to our expectations.

Some people will say it doesnt feel like sc, and others will say it still feels like old sc.

I think the reason why blizzard is taking so long for sc2 is because of computers. If you play broodwar and click the protoss guy artanis multiple times he will say "Yes I know it isnt 3d," or something a long those lines.

Blizzard knew back then that computers couldn't handle massive battles with 1000 3d models doing different animations, at a decent frame rate. The whole point of blizzard games are so that anyone with a Apple 286 16 color display personal computing unit, can play there games.

Now some computers can sort of handle that many models at once with decent frame rates, but blizzard wants it to be at the point where mostly anyone with a computer can handle it. And we arent at that point yet.

The whole goal is that everyone can buy it, and everyone can play it online with a decent fps quality and minimal lag time.

CapnBob

12-01-2005, 04:26 PM

Now some computers can sort of handle that many models at once with decent frame rates, but blizzard wants it to be at the point where mostly anyone with a computer can handle it. And we arent at that point yet.

No, they're waiting for Games Workshop to finish all the 4th edition updates to the armies.

Syl

12-01-2005, 05:27 PM

I greatly enjoyed Metal Arms: Glitch in the System, and i'm expecting this to be a starcraft themed successer.

If the quality is anywhere near as good as Metal Arms, i'll be happy. It's just a shame that Blizzard bought out Swingin' Ape, i really wanted a Metal Arms sequel.

NACIONAL

12-01-2005, 09:08 PM

The whole goal is that everyone can buy it, and everyone can play it online with a decent fps quality and minimal lag time.

you can't get any more truth of this.

What i really love about blizzard is not the gameplay(which is amazing), is not the graphics(which are very stilized), what i really love about blizzard is the story. Maybe is not worth a nobel prize, but damn, it's really compelling and entertaining.

and of course, anyone can play a blizzard game without being dissapointed. that is a HUGE plus in my agenda.