Bad choice from Blizzard...

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

The heroes were boring and uninspired, turning the game into an RPS instead of an RTS. I would not play SCII if they included heroes.LiLsLashy

how were they boring and uninspired? They weren't uninspired at all. You make one, and you select a skill, that's all. Instead of just mass armies and micro that won't help at all, you had a little less of an army and a hero, which added skill and made it much less of a resource race.

The hero's weren't the main part of the game, it's just like any other unit, except it's a little stronger and has some abilities. It's like Command and Conquers special attacks just put into a walking unit. Makes the game interesting. 

[QUOTE="LiLsLashy"]The heroes were boring and uninspired, turning the game into an RPS instead of an RTS. I would not play SCII if they included heroes.Kenshi_is_god

how were they boring and uninspired? They weren't uninspired at all. You make one, and you select a skill, that's all. Instead of just mass armies and micro that won't help at all, you had a little less of an army and a hero, which added skill and made it much less of a resource race.

The hero's weren't the main part of the game, it's just like any other unit, except it's a little stronger and has some abilities. It's like Command and Conquers special attacks just put into a walking unit. Makes the game interesting.

Mass armies are what realistic battles are all about. Implementing heroes in WCIII turned the game into a lame RTS/RPG hybrid. That's the same reason I hated BFME.

Micromanagement will still be important. Skill will still be important. Any RTS is a resource race- there really isn't much else to fight over.


SC2 will be good.Maxer9

I have no doubt it will be good, I guess im just thinking of the possibilities if hero's were implemented. Jim Raynor, Kerrigan, etc. It would be cool to meet them on the battlefield and be like "oh s***". 

[QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

[QUOTE="LiLsLashy"]The heroes were boring and uninspired, turning the game into an RPS instead of an RTS. I would not play SCII if they included heroes.LiLsLashy

how were they boring and uninspired? They weren't uninspired at all. You make one, and you select a skill, that's all. Instead of just mass armies and micro that won't help at all, you had a little less of an army and a hero, which added skill and made it much less of a resource race.

The hero's weren't the main part of the game, it's just like any other unit, except it's a little stronger and has some abilities. It's like Command and Conquers special attacks just put into a walking unit. Makes the game interesting.

Mass armies are what realistic battles are all about. Implementing heroes in WCIII turned the game into a lame RTS/RPG hybrid. That's the same reason I hated BFME.

Yeah I see what you're saying, but I guess it's just difference of opinion. You're right, mass armies are one thing a realistic battle is about, but imo I didn't think it was lame with Hero's.

As for BFME....no comment, only played 2 partially on the 360, not very fun to play RTS on consoles, idk why I bought it. 

Yes I loved the heroes but I have a feeling they didn't just want to copy Wc3's stuff and wanted to keep SC2 closer to the original gameplay instead of revamping it.

u obviously never played SC1, or else ud know that SC is about mass battles, there nearly no micro management its just click and shoot. and they said they stick true to the old SCBenTheJamin

I don't see your "obviously".

I played Starcraft 1, but okay.

I played Broodwar for a good 5 years, and 3 of those years, it was pretty much the only game I played.

I've been through some of the worst and best UMS's, and went through a lot of player matches. a lot a lot.

Even I will admit, although I still have fun playing with it today, RTS's have evolved from what Starcraft is/was. As it as a strategy game, a lot more games have more strategy then just finding the enemies unit weakness and going after that. That's why I brought up heros, super powers, etc.

I mean, say you have a ground of 3 marines versus a group of 3 marines. The winner, most of the time, is going to be the person who right-clicks first. 

Actualy it's a great choice? WC3 is still alive and well, why have the another game just like it only in SF setting?

And yes...tons of people hated the heroes system. 

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

 

 

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

Kenshi_is_god

:?

Believe me, with or without heroes you still need the same amount of effort and skill put in to reach pro levels in SC and WC.

It's a good thing that they're differing their games. We don't need every RTS to have hero units, squads, and superpowers that are becoming common in today's RTS games.

Yes I loved the heroes but I have a feeling they didn't just want to copy Wc3's stuff and wanted to keep SC2 closer to the original gameplay instead of revamping it.

darklord888

Yeah I guess that's it...just...damn, I really see a lot of possibilites with heros in the SC universe. There is still things they could do to distinguish them both, but I guess you're right. Essentially, Warcraft 2 and Starcraft : Brood War were the same thing also. 

[QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

 

 

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

hamumu

:?

Believe me, with or without heroes you still need the same amount of effort and skill put in to reach pro levels in SC and WC.

It's a good thing that they're differing their games. We don't need every RTS to have hero units, squads, and superpowers that are becoming common in today's RTS games.

I was using Hero's as my primary example, but what I was trying to say is, what's to differentiate a team, or two enemies, when they each go at each other with the same thing. No one really has the edge, unless, of course, they bring in a few more of the same units. To me, and I guess this is just me, that could be something that just....I don't even know...irritates me. 

Starcraft II should never incorporate hero's of the magnitude that WarIII did... I liked hero's but SC is such a different pace they just would not fit... Good choice by blizz. Livebythesword

Yeah now that I think about it, it may be best they leave it out.

But let's change it around a little in here, what do you guys think they should add in besides heroes? 

Well, in my opinion I think heroes in Warcraft 3 were very funny, but only in single player. In multiplayer, I think that it's a nuissance to have to manage it constantly in order to upgrade his skills and have to send it in the battlefield in order to gain experience.

Still, I believe that putting heroes in Starcraft 2, in single player, would have been more interesting. At least, it would have been very clever for their part to have an option in multiplayer to enable or disable heroes, unlike Warcraft 3.

I hated heroes in warcraft 3!! you coudnt have an army without an heroe and if your heroe lvl 3 died in a battle the enemy heroes would level up to about 6 so he had the final spell and a lot of advantage. Starcraft is and will always be about mass battles and lots of kills and casualities instead of focusing your entire intelect on one stupid unit who is forced to attack,go find resources and defend all at once.you coudnt go anywhere without that stupid character.

besides heroes or not they will make a great sequel of starcraft because they know that dissapointment with this title would bring ruin to blizzard entertainment,riots destroing everithing total chaos!!!!

sorry for my english

  I really think it would have been cool if they added heros like the generic ones in Warhammer 40k on the imperial side.. They were more or less leader boosters that were some what overpowering but their main bonus was the morale, damage, health bonuses they added. 

   This could send another deminsion but then again it would be hard to balance.

I never actually liked the idea of hero characters in a RTS game... I far prefer C&C's approach by adding buildings that unlock abilities like the Ion Cannon... the general points from Generals/Zero Hour is great as well, it's a pitty they left it out of C&C3.

Hero characters, in my opinion, take more from strategy/tactics then what it gives, at most... the ability to build "semi-hero" units, like C&C's comando, would be cool... like the original Starcraft's Ghost unit:)

As long as Blizzard keeps the cool cut scenes and the Terran's Siege Tank, I'll be happy.... heck! I'm just happy that Blizzard is making something other than World of Warcraft, who knows!? We might even see Diablo 3 next!:P

Dota is a large indication that Heroes were much loved.

I however dislike the role they played as 1 hero could take on waves of enemies by itself if played right.

Heroes should just give stat and regen boosts to squads they are attached to.

If you think about it though Kerrigan, Duke, Raynor, etc are hero units they just don't have any abilities or increased stats. 

it's impossible for SP campaign to proceed without hero characters......so i guess what he means is the hero system of WC3, and only limited to MP mode?

[QUOTE="LiLsLashy"]The heroes were boring and uninspired, turning the game into an RPS instead of an RTS. I would not play SCII if they included heroes.Kenshi_is_god

how were they boring and uninspired? They weren't uninspired at all. You make one, and you select a skill, that's all. Instead of just mass armies and micro that won't help at all, you had a little less of an army and a hero, which added skill and made it much less of a resource race.

The hero's weren't the main part of the game, it's just like any other unit, except it's a little stronger and has some abilities. It's like Command and Conquers special attacks just put into a walking unit. Makes the game interesting.

uh learn to play. Micro wins games in most rts. 

[QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

[QUOTE="LiLsLashy"]The heroes were boring and uninspired, turning the game into an RPS instead of an RTS. I would not play SCII if they included heroes.ForlornHope

how were they boring and uninspired? They weren't uninspired at all. You make one, and you select a skill, that's all. Instead of just mass armies and micro that won't help at all, you had a little less of an army and a hero, which added skill and made it much less of a resource race.

The hero's weren't the main part of the game, it's just like any other unit, except it's a little stronger and has some abilities. It's like Command and Conquers special attacks just put into a walking unit. Makes the game interesting.

uh learn to play. Micro wins games in most rts.

that does not mean at all i don't know how to play. Stop throwing out insults like someone offended you. This isn't system wars. Im saying that hero's added a new level, and if you kept reading I understood other points. Micro isn't that big of a factor when you have nothing to differentiate to squads, sure you can have all your guys attack one of their guys, but they'll just do the same to you. Sure move the guy with low health away, but they'll just concentrate on another guy and you'll have less guns, and like I said, they'll just do the same to you. That's what I was trying to say with abilities and and stuff like that with heros. Like the arch mage could summon a water elemental, some of the heros could heal. They could use that in starcraft, not such extents, but on a smaller degree. Maybe you can get Jim Raynor, who has more armor, looks different, gives a little bonus to surrounding team marines, ONLY marines, and a little more attack. That wouldn't offset anything to badly. But if Blizzard wants to do it without heros, then thats fine, i'll see how it turns out. 

[QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

 

 

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

white45e

dude stfu please eveyone here who has givin u polite responces are just doing that being polite, we all think ur an idiot sc would be horrible with heroes please go back to wc3 and NEVER come back.

Wow..Just wow. 

[QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

 

 

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

white45e

dude stfu please eveyone here who has givin u polite responces are just doing that being polite, we all think ur an idiot sc would be horrible with heroes please go back to wc3 and NEVER come back.

Actually we think you are being rude and unreasonable. He has since accepted that heroes wouldn't really work in SC and everyone's been perfectly civil - you just walked in and made a **** out of yourself.

[QUOTE="white45e"][QUOTE="Kenshi_is_god"]

"There will also be no hero characters, unlike in Blizzard's last RTS, 2002's Warcraft III. Instead, the sequel will be very much about what Pardo calls "mass armies"--large groups of units doing battle at once."

(source is from the "What We Know - Starcraft II" article here on gamespot.)

 

 

Anyone else think that's dumb? The Hero part of WCIII is what made it exciting and intense, and actually added skill. Now we have another, get as much units as you can race, yes, just what I love! The Starcraft universe has more possibilities for Hero's than Warcraft did, there's just so many, and the great thing is, they all aren't land units(ex: Arcturus Mengsk - Battlecruiser).

I really thought they would've added this to give it a little twist, but it's really dissapointing that this game is turning into a resource race...

Metrovania

dude stfu please eveyone here who has givin u polite responces are just doing that being polite, we all think ur an idiot sc would be horrible with heroes please go back to wc3 and NEVER come back.

Actually we think you are being rude and unreasonable. He has since accepted that heroes wouldn't really work in SC and everyone's been perfectly civil - you just walked in and made a **** out of yourself.

Seriously...people need to read threads before they respond. 

it doesnt matter if SC2 will look like walking watter mellons shooting bananas from their behinds with the old SC1 look.

people will play it anyway just too see how the story goes on no matter what they crying about now.

I really don't like heros in rts games, make them more like rpgs and the rpg/rts combo sucks. Sure I'm happy with super units that you can only have one of but heros with exp points and special skills turn me off.nutcrackr

Sometimes they work very well liek the rpg homecity in AoE3 along with its hero like explorer unit. Hes not too mcuh strogner than the average unit, hes useful and hes good to have around. 

in my opinion wise choice. like some other people said, i didnt like hero in wc3 too. it ruined strategy part of the game, it made the game so easy, you never needed a strategy. just lead your hero with some units and you finish the game.

stracraft was about strategy, balanced powers battles. it became the best because of these, so if they would ruin it with some heroes like wc3, it would just hurt starcraft name and true sc fans.

in my opinion wise choice. like some other people said, i didnt like hero in wc3 too. it ruined strategy part of the game, it made the game so easy, you never needed a strategy. just lead your hero with some units and you finish the game.

stracraft was about strategy, balanced powers battles. it became the best because of these, so if they would ruin it with some heroes like wc3, it would just hurt starcraft name and true sc fans.

 

ali_kerem

I agree 1000% Well said.