🚀 go-pugleaf

http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html

On May 18, 11:21 pm, AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html




Ironically, this entire group is going to think you're trolling.

"AirRaid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1179555231.862191.179070@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> 3:07 - Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating
> over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking
> buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on
> right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on
> rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as
> resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game -
> nothing in the game is final.
>
> 3:05 - Morheim says everyone eager to see actual game - going to show
> actual gameplay - bringing up SC2 lead designer. Dustin Browder.
>
> http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155580&page=49


Well well (it is real, www.blizzard.com or www.starcraft2.com for details).

So they finally did get around to this.  I have to say, I'm not really all 
that
opitimistic based on Warcraft III, but I am willing to be impressed.  The
videos look nice.  Still, it'll probably be another year before it comes 
out.

On May 19, 4:34 am, "Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:
> "AirRaid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179555231.862191.179070@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 3:07 - Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating
> > over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking
> > buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on
> > right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on
> > rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as
> > resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game -
> > nothing in the game is final.
>
> > 3:05 - Morheim says everyone eager to see actual game - going to show
> > actual gameplay - bringing up SC2 lead designer. Dustin Browder.
>
> >http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155580&page=49
>
> Well well (it is real,www.blizzard.comorwww.starcraft2.comfor details).
>
> So they finally did get around to this.  I have to say, I'm not really all
> that
> opitimistic based on Warcraft III, but I am willing to be impressed.  The
> videos look nice.  Still, it'll probably be another year before it comes
> out.


for those that have not seen the video

gameplay video:
http://tvpot.daum.net/theme/ThemeView.do?themeid=122&lu=m_mono_1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sog2k6s7xVQ


prerendered CGI video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXoekeDIW8

CGI pics:
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9198/842117955550524f387abh1.jpg
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2286/841117955550524f401bkd5.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6062/845117955524824f5190up1.jpg
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6241/844117955524824f739faf4.jpg
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7200/842117955524724f9501vs0.jpg
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1559/841117955524724f9c06jd3.jpg
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7754/842117955488524fb1d0ji7.jpg

On May 19, 3:53 am, playmeslayme <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 11:21 pm, AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html
>
> Ironically, this entire group is going to think you're trolling.


trolling about what?

I must be missing something.  Didn't seem all that impressive to me.
The crowd was applauding, while I was nearly put to sleep by it...?

AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> for those that have not seen the video
> 
> gameplay video:
> http://tvpot.daum.net/theme/ThemeView.do?themeid=122&lu=m_mono_1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sog2k6s7xVQ


-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message 
news:464ec519$0$12486$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> The videos look nice.  Still, it'll probably be another year
> before it comes out.

FYI, Blizzard announced StarCraft II will be released in October, 2007. 

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:20:45 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@alo.com> wrote:
>FYI, Blizzard announced StarCraft II will be released in October, 2007. 

Ha. Full of shit, you are.

"At this point, it's too early to provide an initial estimate on the
release date. As with all Blizzard games, we will take as much time as
needed to ensure the game is as fun, balanced, and polished as
possible."

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
news:4dju431hshjpmu537osrr8o77mpma4j3h0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:20:45 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@alo.com> wrote:
>>FYI, Blizzard announced StarCraft II will be released in October, 2007.
>
> Ha. Full of shit, you are.
>
> "At this point, it's too early to provide an initial estimate on the
> release date. As with all Blizzard games, we will take as much time as
> needed to ensure the game is as fun, balanced, and polished as
> possible."

You really ought to watch your mouth, but I imagine it will do no good to 
tell you that.  There is more than one source Blizzard information.  You 
cited one.

Read:  http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724

"But now, StarCraft II is not being announced year or two prior to release. 
Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of 
this year." 

"Burt Johnson" <bu...@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote in message 
news:1hycvcv.1mavakvg60gezN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com...
>I must be missing something.  Didn't seem all that impressive to me.
> The crowd was applauding, while I was nearly put to sleep by it...?

There are some die hard Starcraft fans in Korea.. they have televised
matches and shit. 

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "Snowblade"
<nos...@alo.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR SCREEN!!!!:
>"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
>news:4dju431hshjpmu537osrr8o77mpma4j3h0@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:20:45 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@alo.com> wrote:
>>>FYI, Blizzard announced StarCraft II will be released in October, 2007.
>>
>> Ha. Full of shit, you are.
>>
>> "At this point, it's too early to provide an initial estimate on the
>> release date. As with all Blizzard games, we will take as much time as
>> needed to ensure the game is as fun, balanced, and polished as
>> possible."
>
>You really ought to watch your mouth, but I imagine it will do no good to 
>tell you that.  There is more than one source Blizzard information.  You 
>cited one.
>
>Read:  http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724
>
>"But now, StarCraft II is not being announced year or two prior to release. 
>Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of 
>this year." 
>
I suppose you can take that as a tentative date (assuming it is true
and actually came from Blizzard), but until they put something up on
their own official site, the game doesn't have much of an official
release date. 

I'm sure most people here by this point know how Blizzard is with
release dates, and personally because of that I'd rather have them say
nothing than say something only to later retract it. The original SC
and D2 were pushed back how many years? ;-P

On May 19, 12:37 pm, b....@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> I must be missing something.  Didn't seem all that impressive to me.
> The crowd was applauding, while I was nearly put to sleep by it...?

This pic looks quite impressive to me:

http://i3.tinypic.com/4xw5c1y.jpg

"MuuMiMan" <ihatespamandyoumustremov...@mbnet.fi> wrote 
in message news:7e4v43dco9fet56f0vk9831ouietuqalm2@4ax.com...
> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "Snowblade"
> <nos...@alo.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR SCREEN!!!!:
>>"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in 
>>message
>>news:4dju431hshjpmu537osrr8o77mpma4j3h0@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:20:45 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@alo.com> wrote:
>>>>FYI, Blizzard announced StarCraft II will be released in October, 2007.
>>>
>>> Ha. Full of shit, you are.
>>>
>>> "At this point, it's too early to provide an initial estimate on the
>>> release date. As with all Blizzard games, we will take as much time as
>>> needed to ensure the game is as fun, balanced, and polished as
>>> possible."
>>
>>You really ought to watch your mouth, but I imagine it will do no good to
>>tell you that.  There is more than one source Blizzard information.  You
>>cited one.
>>
>>Read:  http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724
>>
>>"But now, StarCraft II is not being announced year or two prior to 
>>release.
>>Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of
>>this year."
>>
> I suppose you can take that as a tentative date (assuming it is true
> and actually came from Blizzard), but until they put something up on
> their own official site, the game doesn't have much of an official
> release date.
>
> I'm sure most people here by this point know how Blizzard is with
> release dates, and personally because of that I'd rather have them say
> nothing than say something only to later retract it. The original SC
> and D2 were pushed back how many years? ;-P
>

And as a result the games completely kicked ass instead of being shitty 
games that people played for a few weeks and then dropped.

Did you see the original shit they were working on - the "Warcraft in 
Space"?   It needed a massive overhaul

--
LTP

:) 

In article <1179595700.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, 
AirRa...@gmail.com says...
> On May 19, 3:53 am, playmeslayme <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 11:21 pm, AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html
> >
> > Ironically, this entire group is going to think you're trolling.
> 
> 
> trolling about what?

About there being a new game called Starcraft 2 obviously.

In article <1179630080.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, 
herzog....@gmail.com says...
> On May 19, 12:37 pm, b....@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > I must be missing something.  Didn't seem all that impressive to me.
> > The crowd was applauding, while I was nearly put to sleep by it...?
> 
> This pic looks quite impressive to me:
> 
> http://i3.tinypic.com/4xw5c1y.jpg
> 

Old fake.

>
> What I didn't like in e.g. Warcraft III was the move to polygon
> graphics. It didn't really add anything to the gameplay (just bumped
> up the HW requirements),

and even with the upped HW requirements, these polygons forced the game into 
a much smaller scale. Smashing bazillions of charging Zerg into bloodpools 
with those marvelous seige tanks had a visceral kick that WC3 just can't 
duplicate.

riku wrote:
> 
> Since this has been the most awaited game for me for many years, I
> will probably buy it even if they release it only on Steam. While the
> gameplay in original Starcraft was not as polished and challenging as
> in e.g. Age of Empires I-II, I really liked how different yet balanced
> the three different races were. Too bad they haven't introduced any
> new races.
> 
> What I didn't like in e.g. Warcraft III was the move to polygon
> graphics. It didn't really add anything to the gameplay (just bumped
> up the HW requirements), and the graphics looked too cartoony with
> them. But I guess a 2D game would not sell well anymore to the masses,
> because people feel all games should support their 3D cards, even if
> it doesn't make any sense. I liked SC better than WCIII.

Totally agree.

SpammersDie wrote:
> 
> and even with the upped HW requirements, these polygons forced the game into
> a much smaller scale. Smashing bazillions of charging Zerg into bloodpools
> with those marvelous seige tanks had a visceral kick that WC3 just can't
> duplicate.

I loved those siege tanks. One of the coolest units in any PC game I've
ever played. I remember advancing my tanks in small groups while
alternating them into and out of siege mode.

Am 19 May 2007 09:54:52 -0700
schrieb AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com>:

> 
> for those that have not seen the video
> 
> gameplay video:
> http://tvpot.daum.net/theme/ThemeView.do?themeid=122&lu=m_mono_1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sog2k6s7xVQ

Gameplay video is now up on blizzard.com or the game site of your
choice. Although it does not feature anything new, you can now watch
the scenes from youtube or similar in much better quality. (1280x768
for the 440MB version.)

I've seen it and I'm kinda flashed. Can't await the release. I really
like those debris and jetpacks!

What I am curious about: IF they support 16:9, will it be 16:9 only?
Because you gain an advantage on players not having 16:9 screens.

"RogerM" <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:4651AE31.C8093722@ns.sympatico.ca...
> riku wrote:
>>
>> Since this has been the most awaited game for me for many years, I
>> will probably buy it even if they release it only on Steam. While the
>> gameplay in original Starcraft was not as polished and challenging as
>> in e.g. Age of Empires I-II, I really liked how different yet balanced
>> the three different races were. Too bad they haven't introduced any
>> new races.
>>
>> What I didn't like in e.g. Warcraft III was the move to polygon
>> graphics. It didn't really add anything to the gameplay (just bumped
>> up the HW requirements), and the graphics looked too cartoony with
>> them. But I guess a 2D game would not sell well anymore to the masses,
>> because people feel all games should support their 3D cards, even if
>> it doesn't make any sense. I liked SC better than WCIII.
>
> Totally agree.

I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for 
whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old? 

"Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a-Gdnb8RMY8v_c_bnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Totally agree.
> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for 
> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?

That depends . . are you 'relatively old'?

I felt for a long while that game makers seemed more concerned with making 
games 3d - rather than making them playable.

However, those times seem to be mostly gone.  Games that are both "uber 
1337" in the graphics department, as well as highly playable are coming out 
often.

--
LTP

:) 

Joe the Aroma wrote:
> 
> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?

For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
controlling the units.

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
<roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> 
>> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
>> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
>
>For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>controlling the units.

Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
3d?

MuuMiMan wrote:
> 
> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
> SCREEN!!!!:
> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >>
> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
> >
> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
> >controlling the units.
> 
> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
> 3d?

If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.

RogerM <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:

> MuuMiMan wrote:
>> 
>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>> SCREEN!!!!:
>> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
>> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
>> >
>> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>> >controlling the units.
>> 
>> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>> 3d?
>
> If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting
> settings.

Huh?

On May 21, 11:17 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "RogerM" <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?

Which games have you recently bought?
--
Leo Petr

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
<roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>MuuMiMan wrote:
>> 
>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>> SCREEN!!!!:
>> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
>> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
>> >
>> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>> >controlling the units.
>> 
>> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>> 3d?
>
>If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.

? 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that?

Follow-ups set

in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:87lk...@gmail.com: 

> RogerM <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
> 
>> MuuMiMan wrote:
>>> 
>>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>>> SCREEN!!!!:
>>> >Joe the Aroma wrote:

<snip>

>> If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting
>> settings.
> 
> Huh?

Check the attribution line....

-- 
Marcel

MuuMiMan wrote:
> 
> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
> SCREEN!!!!:
> >MuuMiMan wrote:
> >>
> >> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
> >> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
> >> SCREEN!!!!:
> >> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun for
> >> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
> >> >
> >> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
> >> >controlling the units.
> >>
> >> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
> >> 3d?
> >
> >If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.
> 
> ?
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that?

Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
think it's clever.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:11:34 -0300, RogerM
<roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
>think it's clever.

Don't take everything so seriously.
-- 
Marines don't Quit, they Regroup!

"Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9938887533E58marcelbeaudoingmailc@130.133.1.4...
> Follow-ups set
>
> in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:87lk...@gmail.com:
>
>> RogerM <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>> MuuMiMan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>>>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>>>> SCREEN!!!!:
>>>> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting
>>> settings.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Check the attribution line....

I don't know what's more surprising - the fact that someone reads those, or 
the fact that someone took the time to make an issue out of it.

--
LTP

:) 

"RogerM" <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:46533256.D72E008A@ns.sympatico.ca...
> MuuMiMan wrote:
>>
>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>> SCREEN!!!!:
>> >MuuMiMan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>> >> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>> >> SCREEN!!!!:
>> >> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun 
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
>> >> >
>> >> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting 
>> >> >and
>> >> >controlling the units.
>> >>
>> >> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>> >> 3d?
>> >
>> >If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that?
>
> Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
> think it's clever.

That's classic.  It's pretty obvious though that you are too petty to go to 
lengths to attempt to converse with.

--
LTP

:) 

"The Vicious OverWind" <over...@nano.dk> wrote in message 
news:8bd653dea7g9j9r7eogoll42m144i1esnc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:11:34 -0300, RogerM
> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
>>think it's clever.
>
> Don't take everything so seriously.

The word "vicious" is in your name - you will likely scare him, replying 
like that!

--
LTP

:) 

On May 19, 12:54 pm, AirRaid <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> for those that have not seen the video
>
> gameplay video:http://tvpot.daum.net/theme/ThemeView.do?themeid=122&lu=m_mono_1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sog2k6s7xVQ
>
> prerendered CGI videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXoekeDIW8
>
> CGI pics:http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9198/842117955550524f387abh1.jpghttp://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2286/841117955550524f401bkd5.jpghttp://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6062/845117955524824f5190up1.jpghttp://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6241/844117955524824f739faf4.jpghttp://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7200/842117955524724f9501vs0.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1559/841117955524724f9c06jd3.jpghttp://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7754/842117955488524fb1d0ji7.jpg

Same old StarCraft. Cartoonish troops advance in a disorderly manner
without cover and form a firing line. Napoleon's armies would have
mowed down these space marines. They would have died even quicker in
US Civil War, and would not have inflicted a single wound before
falling in WWI.

If it works for you, great. Myself, I expect a less ludicrous
contradiction of reality in post-gunpowder games.
--
Leo Petr

In article <ru06535upf86fnre1...@4ax.com>, but only after
serious contemplation, MuuMiMan <ihatespamandyoumustremovethisinordertor
eply...@mbnet.fi> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
><roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>SCREEN!!!!:
>>
>>For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>>controlling the units.
>
>Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>3d?

It wouldn't - but (so far) it can't.

The last few pitiful attempts to make RTS graphics 3D and "zoom in-able"
have best been countered by zooming out as far as possible and changing
the viewing angle to as close to top-down as possible.

IMNSHO (of course). ;-}

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

In article <465306BF...@ns.sympatico.ca>, but only after serious
contemplation, RogerM <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>MuuMiMan wrote:
>> 
>> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
>> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
>> SCREEN!!!!:
>> 
>> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>> 3d?
>
>If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.

You'd (probably fail to) be amazed at how little he cares about a
serious reply. At least from certain quarters. ;-}

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
<roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>> >> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>> >> 3d?
>> >
>> >If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that?
>
>Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
>think it's clever.

Well, whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER Leo Petr
<leons.pe...@gmail.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>
>Same old StarCraft. Cartoonish troops advance in a disorderly manner
>without cover and form a firing line. Napoleon's armies would have
>mowed down these space marines. They would have died even quicker in
>US Civil War, and would not have inflicted a single wound before
>falling in WWI.
>
>If it works for you, great. Myself, I expect a less ludicrous
>contradiction of reality in post-gunpowder games.

Hopefully you also raise a protest because the Quake guy can run &
jump at full speed even at 5% health. Obviously, she should be lying
dead on the ground and bleeding to death if he'd be that injured, no?

On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:13:24 +0100, The Arcane Chas
<Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>>>controlling the units.
>>
>>Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>>3d?
>It wouldn't - but (so far) it can't.
>
>The last few pitiful attempts to make RTS graphics 3D and "zoom in-able"
>have best been countered by zooming out as far as possible and changing
>the viewing angle to as close to top-down as possible.
>
>IMNSHO (of course). ;-}

Supreme Commander is the best example I can think of zooming done
right... but unless you have a craptastical computer or terrible
eyesight, there's nothing difficult about selecting units in 3d. And
what's so great about top-down? Starcraft was at a sort of isometric
angle with all the sprites and crap, not close to (90 degree parallel
to the surface) top down. I'll agree that zooming in all the way to
ground level is pretty pointless aside from looking sorta pretty, but
who plays like that anyway?
--
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://crazyzealot.kicks-ass.net/
re-vamped sig 7D7h.5h.15h

"Leo Petr" <leons.pe...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1179933287.675908.100500@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Same old StarCraft. Cartoonish troops advance in a disorderly manner
> without cover and form a firing line. Napoleon's armies would have
> mowed down these space marines. They would have died even quicker in
> US Civil War, and would not have inflicted a single wound before
> falling in WWI.
>
> If it works for you, great. Myself, I expect a less ludicrous
> contradiction of reality in post-gunpowder games.


This is alpha footage remember.  In Warcraft III they did add formations
and formation movement to the game, and I expect to see it in this game
as well. That movie was probably made form the point of view of making
as much "action" as possible.. and a "pretty" fight.  Not necessarily the
best strategic fight/attack.

Starcraft and Warcraft III alpha/beta shots also were very primitive 
graphically
to what finally was released.  Also, I would never call Starcraft 
"cartoonish".
Warcraft?  YES.  World of Warcraft?  YES.  Starcraft? No.  Dark and gritty
is more like it.  Not very cartoonish.

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
news:0hm953t1dr70mu7v024pj10dqe56ql7t9p@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:13:24 +0100, The Arcane Chas
> <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>>>>controlling the units.
>>>
>>>Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>>>3d?
>>It wouldn't - but (so far) it can't.
>>
>>The last few pitiful attempts to make RTS graphics 3D and "zoom in-able"
>>have best been countered by zooming out as far as possible and changing
>>the viewing angle to as close to top-down as possible.
>>
>>IMNSHO (of course). ;-}
>
> Supreme Commander is the best example I can think of zooming done
> right... but unless you have a craptastical computer or terrible
> eyesight, there's nothing difficult about selecting units in 3d. And
> what's so great about top-down? Starcraft was at a sort of isometric
> angle with all the sprites and crap, not close to (90 degree parallel
> to the surface) top down. I'll agree that zooming in all the way to
> ground level is pretty pointless aside from looking sorta pretty, but
> who plays like that anyway?

I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D - and 
then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - but it 
was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the mission - and 
I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right

--
LTP

:) 

In article <08kci4-...@loki.cmears.id.au>, 
sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu says...
> "RogerM" <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
> news:46533256.D72E008A@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > MuuMiMan wrote:
> >>
> >> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
> >> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
> >> SCREEN!!!!:
> >> >MuuMiMan wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER RogerM
> >> >> <roger...@ns.sympatico.ca> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
> >> >> SCREEN!!!!:
> >> >> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I refuse to buy 3d games. I find 2d games more compelling and fun 
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> whatever reason. Is it cause I'm relatively old?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting 
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >controlling the units.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
> >> >> 3d?
> >> >
> >> >If you expect a serious reply, you need to change your posting settings.
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that?
> >
> > Look at your preamble to my quoted text. It's offensive. Perhaps you
> > think it's clever.
> 
> That's classic.  It's pretty obvious though that you are too petty to go to 
> lengths to attempt to converse with.

Or that he has grown up.

Luc The Perverse wrote:
[snip]
> I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D - and 
> then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - but it 
> was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the mission - and 
> I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right

With 2D it seems harder to me to get the shadows right.

These days I want shadows and light effects in my games :-)

Like 'uh oh, long shadow as the mushroom cloud is still low to the
surface, then extreme brightness, seems someone set me up the bomb!'
(just using my imagination here)

Thomas
-- 
You crawl before you walk
You run before you leap

"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message 
news:465be929$0$5520$e4fe514c@dreader13.news.xs4all.nl...
> Luc The Perverse wrote:
> [snip]
>> I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D - 
>> and
>> then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - but 
>> it
>> was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the mission - 
>> and
>> I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right
>
> With 2D it seems harder to me to get the shadows right.
>
> These days I want shadows and light effects in my games :-)
>
> Like 'uh oh, long shadow as the mushroom cloud is still low to the
> surface, then extreme brightness, seems someone set me up the bomb!'
> (just using my imagination here)
>
> Thomas

Of course the shadows aren't going to be right . .  you know what . . 
nevermind.

I'm sure SC2 will be better for you

--
LTP

:) 

Luc The Perverse wrote:
> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message 
> news:465be929$0$5520$e4fe514c@dreader13.news.xs4all.nl...
>> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D - 
>>> and
>>> then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - but 
>>> it
>>> was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the mission - 
>>> and
>>> I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right
>> With 2D it seems harder to me to get the shadows right.
>>
>> These days I want shadows and light effects in my games :-)
>>
>> Like 'uh oh, long shadow as the mushroom cloud is still low to the
>> surface, then extreme brightness, seems someone set me up the bomb!'
>> (just using my imagination here)
>>
>> Thomas
> 
> Of course the shadows aren't going to be right . .  you know what . . 
> nevermind.
> 
> I'm sure SC2 will be better for you

Plus that animated polygon objects scale better than sprites :-) Now
that should also make some sense to you in this age of fixed resolution
flat screen monitors.

Thomas
-- 
You crawl before you walk
You run before you leap

"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message 
news:465d523b$0$23203$e4fe514c@dreader11.news.xs4all.nl...
> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:465be929$0$5520$e4fe514c@dreader13.news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D -
>>>> and
>>>> then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - 
>>>> but
>>>> it
>>>> was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the 
>>>> mission -
>>>> and
>>>> I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right
>>> With 2D it seems harder to me to get the shadows right.
>>>
>>> These days I want shadows and light effects in my games :-)
>>>
>>> Like 'uh oh, long shadow as the mushroom cloud is still low to the
>>> surface, then extreme brightness, seems someone set me up the bomb!'
>>> (just using my imagination here)
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>> Of course the shadows aren't going to be right . .  you know what . .
>> nevermind.
>>
>> I'm sure SC2 will be better for you
>
> Plus that animated polygon objects scale better than sprites :-) Now
> that should also make some sense to you in this age of fixed resolution
> flat screen monitors.

It always made sense.   3D is better than 2D - it just takes more work

--
LTP

:) 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:b5d0j4-iiv.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message 
> news:465d523b$0$23203$e4fe514c@dreader11.news.xs4all.nl...
>> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>>> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:465be929$0$5520$e4fe514c@dreader13.news.xs4all.nl...
>>>> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D -
>>>>> and
>>>>> then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - 
>>>>> but
>>>>> it
>>>>> was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the 
>>>>> mission -
>>>>> and
>>>>> I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right
>>>> With 2D it seems harder to me to get the shadows right.
>>>>
>>>> These days I want shadows and light effects in my games :-)
>>>>
>>>> Like 'uh oh, long shadow as the mushroom cloud is still low to the
>>>> surface, then extreme brightness, seems someone set me up the bomb!'
>>>> (just using my imagination here)
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Of course the shadows aren't going to be right . .  you know what . .
>>> nevermind.
>>>
>>> I'm sure SC2 will be better for you
>>
>> Plus that animated polygon objects scale better than sprites :-) Now
>> that should also make some sense to you in this age of fixed resolution
>> flat screen monitors.
>
> It always made sense.   3D is better than 2D - it just takes more work
>
> --
> LTP

That's what everyone said back in 1998 in this group. TA = 3D so is 
betar!!!! 

"DJSystem" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:466a9d53$0$11819$e4fe514c@dreader25.news.xs4all.nl...
>> It always made sense.   3D is better than 2D - it just takes more work
>>
>> --
>> LTP
>
> That's what everyone said back in 1998 in this group. TA = 3D so is 
> betar!!!!

I've had the unfortunate experience of having played that game.

The whole power generation/collection thing turned me off.  I greatly prefer 
blizzard style resource gathering.

Don't get me wrong - it is still not nearly as gh3y as the AOE going out to 
pick berries  . . .  thing.

--
LTP

:) 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:astqj4-2li.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "DJSystem" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:466a9d53$0$11819$e4fe514c@dreader25.news.xs4all.nl...
>>> It always made sense.   3D is better than 2D - it just takes more work
>>>
>>> --
>>> LTP
>>
>> That's what everyone said back in 1998 in this group. TA = 3D so is 
>> betar!!!!
>
> I've had the unfortunate experience of having played that game.

So have I. Actually it's still around here somewhere. There were a few 
instances
when I got kinda bored and installed TA again and tried to play it. I can't 
ever
get passed the first mission, it's so depressing and flatout boring.

> The whole power generation/collection thing turned me off.  I greatly 
> prefer blizzard style resource gathering.

That too.

> Don't get me wrong - it is still not nearly as gh3y as the AOE going out 
> to pick berries  . . .  thing.

At least AOE was entertaining to watch. I can't say that about TA. 

DJSystem wrote:
> 
> 
> So have I. Actually it's still around here somewhere. There were a few
> instances
> when I got kinda bored and installed TA again and tried to play it. I can't
> ever
> get passed the first mission, it's so depressing and flatout boring.
> 
> > The whole power generation/collection thing turned me off.  I greatly
> > prefer blizzard style resource gathering.
> 
> That too.
> 
> > Don't get me wrong - it is still not nearly as gh3y as the AOE going out
> > to pick berries  . . .  thing.
> 
> At least AOE was entertaining to watch. I can't say that about TA.

The worst aspect of TA for me was the lack of distinctiveness in both
the appearance and behavior of the many 'different' units. SC had that
game beat all to hell. TA DID have better controls, though.

-- 

Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html