Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Game development status

"the game development is in the pre-alpha stages [3] and is "very far along and already playable in multiplayer with all three races"." Isn't that kindof contradictory? A pre-alpha game can't be described as "very far along". Bogdan2412

No, it's not oxymoronic. They may have a lot to do on the content side of things, but a lot of the hard code and design work appears to be finished - they're using placeholder models from Warcraft 3 in one of the videos (or so it appears), but everything functions correctly. Thus, they may be in a pre-alpha state far from release but still quite playable. -  Ennuified  talk   15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant error in page

The "Create shields on explored land anywhere on the map." needs to be removed as its only source is from a confused IGN reporter who actually meant 'power fields' not 'shields'. Please refer to 3:10 - on http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html, he mentions this supposed create shield ability right after Terran Reapers are introduced, but before the ability to warp units anywhere in pylon range is introduced. Now he reported this live from WWI, as he was watching the gameplay video which is now available all over. Right after the terran reapers are introduced, they hop into a protoss base, take out a pylon making the cannons unpowered. Then Browder introduces the Phase Prism unit which provides a power field similar to pylons. This must be what he meant, he was simply too frantically typing out bits as he watched the video or too new to starcraft to know what to call the protoss power fields. I'd change it myself but I never made an account yet and new users cannot edit the page.

Agreed and done. It's clear that he means power fields. Eyefragment 01:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New Units

Terran Reaper: Uses dual pistols, can jet pack across terrain.

Protoss Immortal: Apparantly invincible to powerful attacks(but still vunerable to weaker ones).
Protoss Colossus: A large quad-legged vehicle that fires strong dual lasers. Shown in the video destroying a large wave of Zerglings.
Protoss Warprey: A flying unit with a continous blue laser, damage increases while continously attacking. Powerful against buildings, but can be quickly destroyed by weaker ground units (ex. Marines)
Protoss Phoenix: A flying unit that can fire multiple charged lasers, but requires massive cooldown after using the ability (rendered inert).
Protoss Mothership: A powerful flying unit which consumes an extreme amount of resources to produce, but is a unique unit (1 at a time). Has the Timebomb ability, which slows all enemy missile attacks, Earth Cracker which fires a large laser that obliterates anything in it's path, in the style of Independance Day? Also has an ability to create a black hole. Looks like a floating sand dollar.

Nydus Worm: Unknown, produces or transports zerglings?( possible replacement for egg) Suicidal Zergling: Also unknown, rolls to move and can suicide like the Infested Terran.

The Nydus Canal was featured in the original StarCraft for use in quickly transporting friendly (typically zerg) ground units. This appears to be the same thing in the game demos. The "Suicidal Zergling" is a new ability of the zerglings to mutate into an unstable state and are ultimately very much like the invested terrans of StarCraft. The Immortal, to elaborate, has a powerful shield that is activated by heavy impacts much like d3o. This shield will not be activated by lesser attacks such as the Reapers. And as a small addition the Colossus is reportedly weak against aircraft, but it does have the ability to scale walls effortlessly.66.248.160.235 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The video of the gameplay shows the Immortal taking several tank shots before going into the yellow. That's a big change from the old dragoon. Also it took a very large amount of reapers to take down a small group of immortals.

Question: I know many of those are the confirmed names, but are all? Also, the Suicidal Zergling was referred to as a "Baneling" in one of the videos, by a Blizzard dev. As for the Immortals, we can conclude they're probably stronger, but for all we know the siege tanks aren't nearly as good now, given that they were an extremely important gameplay factor in the original. Remember, at this point everything's relative to something undefined! -  Ennuified  talk   15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Zerg Returning Units

screenshots here http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/imgs_1.html looks like mutalisks are returning... also a whole bunch of others can be gleaned from those SS's

It is spelled Independence Day Litehawk 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Litehawk

Official Screenshots

Located at IGN.com. http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/imgs_1.html --Kanaru 07:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

More official screenshots at http://www.starcraft2.com/ --Kanaru 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Protoss Returning Units

No "official word" on this, but it looks like it's pretty much confirmed: NO dragoons in SC2. They've died out and been replaced with the Immortals. (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/) --70.71.61.212 09:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New Abilities

Zerglings can mutate into a suicidal creature. See the new units section. Zealots can charge, getting into melee range quickly.

Updating while gaining updates. RedKlonoa 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

I know they say they will feature this and that, but we don't truly know yet it could still change, just like what units will return and what new unit abilities and strengths and look are. This game is still at least a year away. Can we please avoid use of definitive vocabulary? Litehawk 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really necessary since the banner at the top says things can change at any time, which will remain there until the game is released. —EatMyShortz 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the past Blizzard often stated things similar to: "we have not abandoned the starcraft project". So this most recent announcement is for real that SC2 is due to release right? Oidia 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless Blizzard have a death wish. 86.76.16.24 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

lol someone's been waiting for too long Oidia 11:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone should mention that the game is in the 'pre-alpha' stage...look here http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790164p1.html 128.95.141.33 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

I know nothing's confirmed, but if it's 2008, than I think it's probably going to be April 1st, 2008, 10 years after the release of the original. --—JeremyBanks Talk 06:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's ten years after whatever date they announce it! Woohoo, begin the count down.

No release date has been given yet.The one smiley to rule them all 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten years would be 2009 wouldn't it? --Kanaru 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Starcraft came out in 1998. 10 years would be 2008. Look at www.blizzard.com it has the year StarCraft came out.

According to The Inquirer the release date is october 2007: "Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of this year." - source: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724

Unless it's backed up by a interview from a official Blizzard employee then consider it false until proven by a Blizzard employee. From an interview made by the New York Times:

"Blizzard did not announce a release date for StarCraft II. Company executives said the game would not be released this year, but that it would run on both Windows and Macintosh computers when it is made available."

Source, with a Interview of a Blizzard employee to back it up: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/technology/21warcraft.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

High probability that The Inquirer confused the starcraft II release with the release of the starcraft II statue which is due october Source:https://us.blizzard.com/sc2collectible/starcraft2/menu.html Salle79 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This rumor has been floating around the internet for a while, but it's completely false, so watch for it. -  Ennuified  talk   15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image = good!

Nice picture

http://up.kupatrix.com/members/browse/1/Starcraft%20II Here are some uploaded pictures of the teaser video featuring the marine Someone put it up if you feel its okay and useful, just putting the link out there. Litehawk 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Platforms

OS X

Why is OSX in the game desc box for platform? It's somewhat safe to assume that SC2 will run on Windows, but OS X...68.239.128.56 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, every previous major Blizz game has run on both Mac and PC. So it's a guess, but a pretty safe one. eliah 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Blizzard is developing StarCraft II for simultaneous release on the Windows® and Macintosh® PC platforms." http://blizzard.com/press/070519.shtml Rip noob 08:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also in their FAQ: "As with all of Blizzard's recent releases, StarCraft II will ship on both PC and Mac simultaneously." -- MacAddct1984 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Linux

Although in all likelihood Blizzard won't release the game for Linux, some people (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=448469) have posted a petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html) for Linux support. I think it should be noted on in the article (remember, the existence of the petition is a fact, not speculation). Mrchaotica 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

XBOX 360

Isn't it coming out for the 360 as well? I heard that it was. If so, that should be included in there. DaGrandPuba 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No just PC and Mac. You should read the articles.

It is clearly stated that this will only be released for PC and Mac. bob rulz 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"StarCraft II is being developed for the PC. We have no current plans to bring the game to any console platform." - Starcraft2.com -  Ennuified  talk   00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vista Achievements Support?

Because StarCraft II is compatible with Windows Vista, does this automatically mean Achievements will be supported? I don't think Blizzard has said anything of the matter, but it seems that all Games for Windows/Vista games are including Achievements.

Sign your posts please, even if you are unregistered. To answer your question: I don't think so. That's part of the entire Windows Live thing, which is limited to Windows Vista exclusives, and SC2 has been confirmed as running on XP. Also, Blizzard probably doesn't really want anything to do with Microsoft. I'm not sure though, can someone who knows a little more about it confirm? -  Ennuified  talk   15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

in game video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJB-Z54R61s

Returning Units/Structures

Scanning the screenshots, we can pick up several familiar structures that can be identified right away. Maybe a list of old stuff and new stuff is in order?

Here's my list so far, I'm only posting units that has not been mentioned in the main page or official StarCraft II website.

Returning Units/Structures -

Terran:

Units SCV - Appears around the Command Center-ish looking building
Marine - Updated with a shield attachment on the power suit, do I also spot a bayonet attachment on the gun?
Siege Tank - Deployed in Siege Mode, the unit scale and blast radius (siege mode) seems to be enlarged.
Battle Cruiser - One screen on IGN shows several Battle Cruisers charging what seems to be Yamato Gun
Ghost - Appears after nuclear warhead detonates in the gameplay movie, slaughtered by unburrowed zerg units soon after.

Structures Bunker - some screen shots shows fire coming out, same garrison ability?
Missile Turret - One screen has Missile Turrets firing at those over-sized Collosus, this may imply ground-defense ability? Or just that Collosus are so big that ground-to-air attacks can hit it?
Barrack - The legs are intact, so it can be safe to assume the lift-off feature is still there
Refinery - seems to be doing the same thing
Command Center - The thrusters are visible, so maybe it kept life-off feature also.

Zerg:

Units Zergling - Absolutely massive amount of these guys, emphasis even more on their swarming ability maybe?
Mutalisk - Being fired at by a Missile Turret, with blood coming out.

Structures Unknown Building - Given that it has no creep coming out, and seems to stand on top of a crater, maybe an Extractor?

Protoss:

Units Probe - Was seen warping several buildings behind a next of Photon Cannons

Structures Photon Cannon - Several of these have shields blocking incoming fire

Note: It is correct that the main article should not contain complete list of known units or buildings, the list presented here is meant as reference/analysis of source materials (screenshots and trailers), for opening up useful discussions.
Maximilius 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears Hydralisks are in a lot of the artwork (but not screenshots) and video 203.59.102.165 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After watching the Korean release footage, it appears the nuclear blast range has been significantly reduced. The terran player was able to move their ghosts into the ground zero very quickly, suggesting that the ghosts were sitting relatively close to the target and did not have to flee after sighting the target. This would conclude that the blast radius has been reduced, especially since there were three nukes launched in the same area. 5/20/07 8:02:00 Pacific Standard

Reminder to Editors

While news of SC2 and its new features is popular, remember the Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT - in particular, avoid listing out every unit in the game known so far. --Scottie_theNerd 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree that we should only list NEW units (new from SC1), or additional functions of existing units. Oidia 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid listing every unit? This is an entirely new game, not an expansion pack. Someone should be able to go to this page and get all needed information about this game. I think a stand-alone game deserves a stand-alone page. Also, many of the old units will most likely have new abilities, etc. j 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you think that Wikipedia is the one-stop website for all your gaming needs, you are mistaken. The WP:VG guidelines do not include unit and item lists as part of gaming articles. You may notice that the original StarCraft article also lacks a unit list. There are many other sites and Wikis that can include this information; consider contributing to them instead of throwing listcruft onto this article. --Scottie_theNerd 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about having a second wikipedia page dedicated to Starcraft2 'Units and Structures'? This would keep the main page clear and consice and allow for everyone to find what they are after.

Gameplay and "factions"

I added more information in the gameplay section. The info is basically what you would expect in a Real Time Strategy game, especially from Blizzard. And I changed the "factions" to "Races". In the actual game, blizzard classified Protoss, Terran and Zerg as "race". And using the term factions are not very accurate. Look at Terran for example, they are splited "Terran Dominion", "the UED", "Kel-Morian Combine", etc, and these different groups would be considered "factions". Oidia 11:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube video

Someone should add this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMnCKQFUnQ to the external links section. -Pho3nix-

Races

"Although most fans expected a new race to be introduced to the game, it has been announced that there will be only the original three races."

This isn't sourced so I can't check it, and I haven't been through all of the announcement stuff yet, but is that really true? The FAQ on the website seems to have been carefully worded to avoid the question "how many races will there be", stating the originals will return but not whether these are the ONLY races. Radix 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation Oidia 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to call that into question. The FAQ does say that the three original races will return, but it does not actually say there will not be a new race. It just says the original ones will return, ti does not deny or confirm new races. The Clawed One 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, alternative source (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171172.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;title;1) confirms this. The Clawed One 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know if that really confirms it because the way it's said. You'd think they would make a bigger deal out of it if it were true. I think I'll stick with the Blizzard FAQs once we get more information later on. :P

Another thing. If you go to www.starcraft2.com and hover over the faces in the flash. It'll say "Protoss Section: Online" Which could simply mean the to-be-announced races are simply not ready to be shown yet.--65.30.35.19 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

They probably want to avoid what happened with Warcraft 3- they announced 6 races, then cut it down to 5, then to 4. So they're saying "there are three" without saying "There are exactly three". When they actually are going to show race #4 if it exists, then they'll start saying "there are four" Webrunner 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GosuGamers is saying the same thing, http://sc.gosugamers.net/news/6309 --68.209.227.3 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The panel (of Blizzard employees) also confirmed that the sequel will have only the three factions of the Protoss, Terrans, and Zerg; there will be no fourth faction. -- from and A session details Starcraft II on Gamespot 67.8.147.102 Sysrpl 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Gamespot summary of the panel discussion is hearsay. The official Blizzard FAQ says that Terran, Protoss, and Zerg will be in the game. It doesn't say they will be the only three races in the game. If Blizzard wanted to say "only 3 races," they would. Unless you have a quote that states that there will only be three races - not someone's interpretation of what is obviously a very heated topic of discussion - we should stick to what we know from Blizzard. - Chardish 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I should make myself more clear. The risk we run by saying that "Blizzard confirmed there will only be three races in the game" is that Gamespot was simply misparaphrasing the Blizzard panel. This is a strong possibility, since the Blizzard website doesn't confirm that there will only be three races. - Chardish 00:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this. Every source I can find at least implies that there are only three races. GameSpot, however, clearly states that there will be no fourth faction. GameSpot is a reliable secondary source and there are no reliable sources which provide information contrary to what they have stated in their "Q&A session" article. --- RockMFR 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, from Saturday's official StarCraft II Q and A Sessions, yet another source: One burning question that Rob Pardo was eager to squelch concerned the long-rumored fourth race (the Xel'Naga or the Zerg/Protoss hybrids hinted at in the first game). He stated in no uncertain terms that there will be no fourth race in StarCraft II. The game will contain the Human, Zerg and Protoss factions and the team is completely focused on getting them as asymmetric yet balanced as possible. from gamespy [1] Sysrpl 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Since Rob Pardo directly addressed the "there is no fourth race" topic, I would imagine that's sufficient evidence to assume that the Gamespot comment isn't hearsay. Nonetheless, I removed the weasel wordy "fans expected another one" statement. - Chardish 02:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are only three according to numerous articles. If those sources aren't good enough then please remove all of the other info based on sources that aren't blizzard's site. (by the way, I'm dissapointed too, but wikipedia must be the place where the cold truth is located) Jason13086 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's evidence that there might be a fourth race that isn't in multiplayer in the cinematic trailer (sort of like Naga or the Burning Legion from Warcraft III). You can see an image of a creature in a Stasis Cell here at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Hybrid.jpg Kimera757 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says the "Xel-Naga and Terran Dominion factions will feature in this game..." The reference to the Xel-Naga was misquoted from Gamespot. Instead the quote says that the Xel-Naga will play into the story line, not that they will actually be a faction in the game. "Chambers also suggests that the ancient Xel'Naga ... will also figure into Starcraft II's story." Someone should change that.66.248.160.235 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Background Info

I think we should have a section or at least provide some information in the article relating to the anticipation of fans for SC2. This is from the SC1 article:

Many Easter eggs can be unlocked during and after completion of Warcraft III which relate to StarCraft, leading many to sequel speculation.[24] There was also a leak about a 2007 release from HanbitSoft, the Korean publisher of StarCraft.[25] Job advertisements on Blizzard.com looking for a "Game Balance Designer" with experience in StarCraft and Warcraft III,[26] and the fact that there are several unannounced titles also being developed, suggest that Blizzard is working on another RTS, possibly StarCraft II. A fourth Warcraft game, a third Diablo game, or an entirely new franchise, however, remain possibilities.[27] Nearly 17,000 players have signed an online petition in support of a sequel's creation.[28] A group of fans operating under the name Snowflake Entertainment are creating a mod to create StarCraft using the WarCraft III game engine, titled Project Revolution. Although not a sequel, Project Revolution will transfer the game from two to three dimensions.[29] On January 16, 2007, Blizzard hinted at Starcraft II at the Burning Crusade expansion launch night for World of Warcraft.[30] On May 13, 2007, a timeline was added at www.blizzard.com, documenting the three flagship series. It is assumed that the timeline will end on May 19, when Blizzard is scheduled to announce their new game. On May 19, 2007 Blizzard Entertainment announced that StarCraft II is in development.[23]

I think we should add something similar to that into article. Of course we should condense it and try to avoid POV, so non-SC players can understand the significance of the release of this sequel. Oidia 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

We have a request, we are a team that have made a Starcraft 2 News Fan Website, that covering news about Starcraft 2. So if there could be a place to list the fansite to Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 News: http://www.starcraftnews.com

Since the purpose of Wikipedia is not being a collection of external links, I believe that the policy is to keep the links to fan sites at a minimum. Nice to see that Starcraft 2 fansites are popping up so quickly though. :) Jeltz talk 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oksy is it possible to make a section called Starcraft 2 fansites then?

Well not now. It will be deleted if added. Let the game get released. Iam sure if 1 adds thousands will follow. --SkyWalker 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are fansites, doesn't matter when/if the game is actually released. Although, I'm not sure if its against wikipedia's policies to have large lists like that. Jason13086 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well www.starcraftnews.com is more like an information website for Starcraf 2. Isn't that relevant?

It's relevant, but that website does not merit inclusion in this article over any other of the probably hundreds of Starcraft 2 fansites that have appeared in the past few days. No fansites should be posted now - closer to the game's release it would make sense for a few of the more prominent fansites to be linked to in the External Links part of the article, but not until we know who the biggies are. -  Ennuified  talk   00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Units List (Nydus Worm?)

Ok only put the Units that WE KNOW AND HAVE BEEN NAMED in there. Stuff like the nydus worm and such are not accurate as they have not been announced. Obviously old units return. But for now for the sake of preserving some shred of credibility, only put what is offical on the website or released from blizzard.

Have the official names for the "nydus worm" or "banelings" been released? If not, that's just speculation. Google-searching "nydus worm" gives one website, in Polish. And, once again, source for the succubus?Lieftastic 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Baneling" was specifically used during the Korean stage demo to refer to zerglings in sucide-bomb mode. They are an official unit. 10:34, 20 May 2007 (CST)

Having watched the footage, it appears that the names Nydus Worm and Baneling are used. However, I still see no mention of the succubus anywhere.

Isn't the Nydus Worm exactly the same as the Nydus Canal? Why would they change the name of something identical like that? Anyway I have a better idea. Only add units/buildings that are either listed on www.starcraft2.com (currently only protoss units 5/20), or units that are gone into some detail in official gameplay demos (eg. the reaper and the new zergling ability).66.248.160.235 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

warprey or warpray

I couldn't tell from the video if it was "warp-ray" or "war-prey". I thought it was the first, the entry says the second.

It's definitely Warp Ray. This can be confirmed by viewing the unit videos of Sc2. 24.254.48.67 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, this official screenshot from Blizzard confirms that it's "Warp Ray". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the Trivia section...

I just added the Trivia section along with its first entry.

You can see the screenshot of the frame here: http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=starcraft25stormrage90by1.jpg

edit: ok, apparently someone removed the trivia I had just added under the premise that it's not relevant... Trivia is trivia, not always relevant...

Read WP:AVTRIV. And sign your posts. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:AVTRIV is to avoid lists of miscellaneous information in favor of integrating it into other sections of the article. There is nothing necessariliy wrong with trivia.128.95.141.33 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AVTRIV:

Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all.

One frame of video which has nothing to do with SC2 itself is irrelevant. It's also Original research to go hunting through video frame-by-frame and then adding that info to Wikipedia. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ

We need to make this accurate.

We should get rid of the names that have not been released yet for units. Like the protoss Pheonix? Not happening. Only things on the offical website(s) of blizzard should be used.

Several names were also mentioned at WWI, but not placed on the website. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did VolkovBot remove an entire section?

VolkovBot removed the entire section on multiplayer for no apparent reason. Should it be reverted? Vocaro 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a glitch in the bot. -- RattleMan 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes add the multiplayer section Jason13086 02:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added it back in, with improvements. Vocaro 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Unit list

Seriously, calm down and think about what you're adding. Game articles that follow the Wikipedia guidelines and the Video games WikiProject guidelines do not contain unit lists; they are considered collections of indiscriminate information and are not useful to readers who do not play the game. It's easy to get caught up in the news release and list every unit that was seen in the demo, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a video game Wiki - there are plenty of those around where the unit list will be more welcome.

I'm sure a bunch of people will stand up and complain that the list is necessary to the article. So, rather than being bold, I'm stating my intent to remove the list here. For those who oppose, please explain why the list should stay when it directly violates WP:NOT. As a Wikipedia article, we should construct relevant prose based on the development and release of StarCraft II instead of throwing every tidbit of information from the demo. --Scottie_theNerd 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, that isn't to say that we shouldn't mention units. Rather, we should organise what we know of the new features into a brief overview of new features - such as the inclusion of "super units" like the Protoss Mothership - instead of listing out every unit and change like an instruction manual. --Scottie_theNerd 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the official StarCraft II website contains full unit lists and descriptions, making it pointless to list them all in this article. --Scottie_theNerd 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any unit descriptions on the page should be similar to those at StarCraft, which is a FA. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that any new units should be listed in the article under the headling "New features". New units mean the ones that did not exist in Starcraft 1. Whereas old units, don't list them. Oidia 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some leeway on this for the first 24-48 hours after the announcement. I say leave it up till monday. After all, it has all of the qualifiers at the top of the page. (Scottie, you should draft some new guidelines for this.) Jason13086 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think unit lists do constitute useful information when there is so little. Rather than set a time limit, I think we should just let the article expand over time, and as more information becomes available, those unit lists will become less important and will gradually get scaled back. —EatMyShortz 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists aren't important to begin with. Such information can already be readily found on the official site. As a Wikipedia article, the details can be dropped and summarised into something that reflects the development and direction of the new game. There's little point in listing new units, especially as we don't even list the original units in the StarCraft article, and as mentioned above, that has FA rating. I will reorganise the units section to reflect the new features of the game and its units without listing everything out. --Scottie_theNerd 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The unit list and race's abilities aren't crucial to this article and should instead be listed under the race's specific article, but without that information here, this particular article would be rather lacking. I say we leave the lists up until we have a substantial amount of information to add to the article so that it can stand up on its own. Many people still aren't aware of this game's announcement and would like to see what's what in the game when they come here. Zeldanum1 16:12, 20 May 2007 (EST)

Of course the article will be lacking. The game's just been announced - once more information is officially released, we can add more content. We shouldn't be including placeholder information and filler content just to make the article appear longer. We're not ditching all the content; we're reorganising it in a more constructive and relevant manner instead of listing units and abilities that can already be found on the Blizzard site. --Scottie_theNerd 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the tagline "Hell,it's about time' would be a nice touch to the article

remember that we need to write the article in a neutral tone. Oidia 06:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the unit list with an overall description of the new unit features in StarCraft II as seen through the demo and official site. I ask that editors add to it as more content is released. I think the prose is a bit shabby, but captures the objectives in the game's design instead of listing units unnecessarily. --Scottie_theNerd 09:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you'll pay for this one! Look what you just edit-conflicted me out of!

There should be a second game in the wiki for Starcraft 2 units, that grows and expands as more information is released. I agree that displaying it on the main page is a bad, but see no reason why we can't link to a second wiki page entitled 'Starcraft 2 units and structures' with a complete listing.

The only units that should be listed should be those that have undergone significant changes whether they be looks or function. For instance, the Siege tank has gone from 2 barrels to 3 in tank and 1 in siege. Also the new phase prism looks like it now functions as the shuttle but importantly now drops units all at once, not one by one. To old players, that's life and death. Also, what's with the marine's new shield?

Gameplay

The main gameplay will remain similar to that of its predecessor, Starcraft. As Blizzard president Mike Morhaime stated in a press release, "[w]ith StarCraft II, we'll be able to do everything we wanted to do with the original StarCraft and more" - gameplay will focus on acquiring and allocating resources between a variety of units, structures and upgrades.

The three original races of the Starcraft will return in Starcraft II: Protoss, Terran, and Zerg. It has been announced that these are the only races in the game.. However, changes will be made to each race - new upgrades, abilities, and gameplay mechanics will be added. For example, the Zergling will be able to mutate into a new unit, called the Baneling, which uses a physics-based suicide attack, while the Protoss will be able to erect shields anywhere, warp units to pylons and the new Phase Prism unit, and give Zealots a new "charge" ability to quickly close distances.

In addition, a number of new units have been revealed to be playable in Starcraft II. The Terran boast a Marine-like unit known as the Reaper, which uses a jump-jet to traverse uneven, or elevated, terrain. The Zerg, along with the Baneling, also have a new transport unit known as the Nydus Worm, which is capable of moving smaller units underground..

File:Starcraft II screenshot.jpg

Screenshot of StarCraft II. In this shot, the new Phase Prism allows the Protoss to warp in Zealots to combat Terran Marines. Also shown are several Barracks and a Command Center.

However, the Protoss have seen the largest expansion announced so far - with seven new units announced. These include the Colossus, a quadrupedal vehicle capable of traversing elevated terrain and firing lasers, the Immortal, which replaces the "Dragoon" from Starcraft, and the Stalker, a variant on the Immortal, capable of teleporting short distances. A number of new air units include the colossal hovering Mothership, a unique unit capable of multiple attacks and with a variety of special attacks, the Pheonix, an aircraft capable of overcharging its weapons for a special attack, the Warp Ray which uses a time-based damage attack, and the Phrase Prism which acts a mobile pylon and teleporter.

A number of heroes from the original game are slated to return, including Sarah Kerrigan and Zeratul.

--Haemo 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice, but sounds like an overdose of unit names and bolding. I think your focuses too much in listing out the units from the demo and not enough on the real life aspect of SC2's development. --Scottie_theNerd 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the Protoss mothership, so there are eight officially announced new Protoss units. 10:36 AM, 20 May 2007 (CST)

From what I'm reading sc2 will be signifcantly different from the original. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html.

• game will be even more competitively oriented...design goal: "skilled players will be able to absolutely crush those of lesser ability"
  • firing from high ground no longer reveals unit
  • 'hard' unit counters, eg. templars to be the counter to zerglings, immortals to seige tanks, etc.
• more low-level tech options to make rushing more deadly (and scouting more important)
• games designed not to last more than 20 minutes (original games could last an hour sometimes)

Jason13086 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalkers aren't modifications of Dragoons. They don't use dead or dying protoss. They instead take regular dark templar and fuse them into the machine. They are inspired by them, but that's where it ends.

Multiplayer

• designed to be the ultimate competitive game
• ign article mentioned something about a tv channel showing games in north america
• will run on battle.net

Jason13086 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

mengsk

clearly hes the person in that picture and should be added to heros list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.130.39 (talk)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's no source claiming that the concept art is "clearly" Mengsk nor are we sure that he will feature in StarCraft II. Be patient, wait until more information is released, and we can add to the article accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It could just be a flashback, after all ;) --Haemo 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! so many rules here, even one that prevents you from looking in the future. how corny. Good friend100 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We're interested in building an encyclopedia and our rules and policies are intended to help guide contributors towards that goal. You're welcome to contribute elsewhere if our rules and policies are too restrictive. You're also welcome to attempt to change some of those rules and policies. --ElKevbo 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in changing the rules. Good friend100 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports facts. That doesn't include guessing what might be included in the future. --Scottie_theNerd 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

71.190.24.67 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Mengsk is in the game. The billboard in the center of this concept art says "Megnsk"

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/img_4560470.html

Well, the statue and billboards could be a memorial for all we know. Fang Teng 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Mengsk was the Emperor of the Terran Dominion... there are going to be pictures and statues of him everywhere regardless. Until we know for sure that he's in it, we CANNOT include him in the article. -  Ennuified  talk   00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DirectX

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the article it is stated that "It supports DirectX 9 (pixel shader 2.0) and the development team is considering adding DirectX 10 as well." (Under "Features") But in the site's (starcraft2.com) FAQ, Blizzard has said that the game will be "compatible with DirectX 10" (post-consideration); also, there's no direct mention of "DirectX 9" in the FAQ, although the FAQ goes on to say that it'll be compatible with previous versions of DirectX. Celeritas

The distinction appears to be that the game does not currently use any DirectX 10 features, but that it is compatible with DirectX 10, i.e. it can be used on computers with DirectX 10. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Demo"

The word demo is used a lot in the article. However, there is no explination as to what this is. Blizzard has stated that no publicly available demo exists (http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml). I'm assuming this is from what was playable at the Blizzard Convention or given to reviewers. But even so, it doesn't make sense at the moment. What demo is the article talking about? --Notmyhandle 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The demo is the demonstration of game play displayed at the Convention. It is not the kind of demo you are thinking of. Jeltz talk 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be noted as the Korean release game footage for accuracy. A demo in most contexts is playable. That is definitely not the case here. Someone should reference the youtube video instead of calling it the demo. I thought we were going for accuracy. Guess not. datchoy86 21:12 20 May 2007

That, or simply call it a "demonstration", as demo makes people think it's something that one can play. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I linked it to the 1up.com game footage main page for all of the SC2 videos from the Korean release. datchoy86 21:23 20 May 2007

closing SC 1 multiplayer servers

There were rumors that blizzard would be closing their original Starcraft servers. Does anyone know if this is true or false? That would be good info to have here (it would be very out of character). Fresheneesz 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance. They are people who still play SC1 especially the Koreans. --SkyWalker 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't dare do that. 67.162.10.70 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to their FAQs [2] (as of this writing), SC1 will still be playable on Battle.net:

Will we still be able to play the original StarCraft on Battle.net after StarCraft II is released?

Yes, you will.

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

Please don't use YouTube videos as references. That's just laziness. All these gameplay videos are coming from somewhere, right? We certainly don't copy IGN articles to GeoCities pages and then cite that. Don't do the same for videos. --- RockMFR 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

they load the fastest though 65.2.87.44 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in general, does not allow users to link to YouTube for Copyright sakes. Unless the video was posted by its creator, ei CBS' Youtube Channel, it should not be posted on Youtube. See WP:External Links --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1up.com has the footage. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3159662

datchoy86 21:12 20 May 2007

As this relates to Ghost...

Its finally here!!! (eight years overdue, but I am not going to complain). On a more serious note: Has this announcement effected the development of SC:Ghost in any way, or has Blizzard refrained from providing that infomation? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghost was put on indefinite hold way before StarCraft II was announced. There has been no announcement about how SC2 has affected the development of Ghost. --Scottie_theNerd 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is becuase some of the FAQ-related material I read seemed to suggest that Blizzard was developing a StarCraft II in line with Ghost. My take on the matter (and remember this is my opinion, not a fact) was that StarCraft II and Ghost were to be released around the same time on different platforms, which explained why a PC version for Ghost was noticably absent. Then I get the news that an official development announcement was made regarding SCII; so I thought that there may have been some connection between the two. Thats why I brought it up. In any case I thank you for the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not releasing a game for PC doesn't make it any easier for the StarCraft II development. --Scottie_theNerd 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)