Marth said:
Pemalite said:
It also costs a fortune in PAL territory's. Like $250-$1,400 expensive.
I want a N64 classic so I can finally have the game again.
Another issue with StarCraft 2 coming to consoles is the CPU, it's a CPU hog like most RTS games, especially during the end game when things are busy, not exactly the Switch's strong point.
With that in mind, Halo Wars has proven that RTS games can work with a controller.
|
From what I've heard the controls of StarCraft 64 were painful.
And I can't picture SC2 running good on a controller setup.
Halo Wars was at least desiged for a controller while StarCraft would be a port.
SC2 has a lot of highspeed interactions and those would have to be rebalanced for a console release.
While I don't think it is impossible to make the control scheme work i am pretty certain it would not feel that good.
Maybe as campaign and coop mode only.
|
I used to play the game all the time on the Nintendo 64.
The controls were certainly painful... But the entire game compensated for that and was re-balanced to a degree.
Back then RTS games were extremely cumbersome (To be fair... Still are) on console, so it was expected.
Blizzard did actually automate a few things like resource gathering to reduce the demand on managing resources and gatherers... And at the time was certainly the best RTS game on console.
For StarCraft 2 to work on console, Blizzard needs to look at Halo Wars... That is before we even start considering the CPU issue.
