Starcraft on TI-84???

[Techno 5.0]

Okay what i have stumbled upon today probably isnt any news for anyone here but….
i found out i can play starcraft on Ti-84 plus calculator. now what astounds me is the game looks cool. i havent played it yet

but seriously why cant they just port it to something like the DS.
it is actually perfect for it now:

3ds now sports 3D and enough power for visuals like starcraft 2.
starcraft in 3d just sounds awesome

you would be targeting such a huge audience of gamers
sales might increase.
new tournaments, ds expansions etc.

sounds like a good or bad idea?

[SawQuart]

Well this makes Math class a lot more fun…

[Godlord]

@Ninja-Tech:

> but seriously why cant they just port it to something like the DS.

To actually develop something for the Nintendo DS, you'll need a **licence** from Nintendo.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[LRgamer]

Aw, homebrew's fun too, Stephan!

[Dash]

I always thought Starcraft would be a nice fit on the DS, even better on the 3DS. Blizzard obtaining a License from Nintendo shouldn't be hard at all, they prob have no interest in making the thing though. Scratch that… Activision already has one and Blizzard is a part of them, no?

I'm surprised there aren't that many RTS's on the DS, it's a perfect fit.

[Godlord]

@Crispus:

> Aw, homebrew's fun too, Stephan!

Companies and homebrew don't really blend.

@Dash:

> Blizzard obtaining a License from Nintendo shouldn't be hard at all, they prob have no interest in making the thing though. Scratch that… Activision already has one and Blizzard is a part of them, no?

Actually, quite the contrary. Especially if you know what both Blizzard and Activision have been up to lately, it would just be a vexing idea to hand out licences to either companies. Not to mention that Nintendo is only looking forward to certain games, and RTS-games often aren't included in what they look forward to.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[saadhamza]

Yes, but Nintendo also just failed their biggest project, the 3DS, so it's obvious that they don't always make the correct choice. Not that you said they did make correct choices, Stephan, but it's just something i wanted to say. I think the SC2 would be an amazing addition to the 3DS, and it would most likely urge me to buy one. Can you imagine that game in 3D? I think it would be awesome.

[Godlord]

@Zonova:

> Yes, but Nintendo also just failed their biggest project, the 3DS, so it's obvious that they don't always make the correct choice. Not that you said they did make correct choices, Stephan, but it's just something i wanted to say. I think the SC2 would be an amazing addition to the 3DS, and it would most likely urge me to buy one. Can you imagine that game in 3D? I think it would be awesome.

Yes, being Nintendo, you'd definitely want Starcraft II from the same company that also works on game titles like World of Warcraft and Diablo III. I don't think so.

Also, Nintendo has had more failures: e.g. the power glove for the NES, they can afford to make mistakes, because they are at least innovative.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[mrmiguu]

@S.J.R.:

> Also, Nintendo has had more failures: e.g. the power glove for the NES, they can afford to make mistakes, because they are at least innovative.

Thank you!

So many haters nowadays on Nintendo. I enjoy their products.

[Godlord]

Over the years I've actually bought way more products from Nintendo than from Microsoft _and_ Sony together, when it comes to actual game consoles. The primary reason for that is because of Nintendo's insane innovation. Just take a look at E3\. Microsoft's Kinect was just horribly presented, whereas the Wii-U was just yet another mad Japanese product. Nintendo doesn't care really care about graphics or anything like that, because if you are a graphics whore, you should be wasting your money on four NVIDIA cards using SLI or a bunch of AMD Radeon HDs, and not on a game console.

The 3DS might have been a bad decision on Nintendo's part, I haven't really looked that much at it, but who cares. At least they do take the risk, unlike other companies. At least they are being innovative, and at least they do present new products, it's what they are known for, and they are generally doing a bloody good job at that. Without the NDS, I wouldn't have played games like Trauma Centre, for instance.

And well, I don't really dislike Sony when it comes to that matter, the Playstation Vita seems very solid as well, and the Eyetoy was yet another product that at least showed some innovation. Whereas Microsoft generally does a bad job at it.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[mrmiguu]

@S.J.R.:

> if you are a graphics whore, you should be wasting your money on four NVIDIA cards using SLI or a bunch of AMD Radeon HDs, and not on a game console.

Amen!

I thought the 3DS was really neat! It's another innovation for Nintendo. Anyone else doing the same would literally just be copying them.

[Dash]

The 3DS fails at the first 2 characters in it's name. Later down the line maybe something can make me want to use the 3D slider on the thing for more than 5 minutes but right now It's just a beefed up DS.

[Godlord]

I think one of the biggest problems with the 3DS is that games either become unplayable because the frame rate drops a lot, or that games simply have no actual use for it. Otherwise it would probably have been a good feature.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[mrmiguu]

@S.J.R.:

> games either become unplayable because the frame rate drops a lot

Really? That's interesting. I've never heard of games being released with a poor natural frame rate. Why would some publishers do that?

[Godlord]

If I were to programme an application that used anaglyph 3D, my frame rate would at least drop by half, because I'd have to render twice. I've heard something similar happening for the 3DS, but I do not remember what games those were exactly, but all, if not most, should have the option to turn off 3D.

@MrMiguu:

> Really? That's interesting. I've never heard of games being released with a poor natural frame rate. Why would some publishers do that?

Most of the times it's either a specific scene in the game that causes an enormous frame rate drop, or a certain setting (e.g. the 3D-feature). I've barely seen games that do have bad frame rates all the time.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[saadhamza]

@S.J.R.:

> Yes, being Nintendo, you'd definitely want Starcraft II from the same company that also works on game titles like World of Warcraft and Diablo III. I don't think so.

Am i missing something? Why wouldn't Nintendo want to make a deal with the company that made the 3 most popular games on earth? Is it because of the violence in WoW and Diablo?

@S.J.R.:

> Also, Nintendo has had more failures: e.g. the power glove for the NES, they can afford to make mistakes, because they are at least innovative.
> Yours faithfully
>   Stephan.

Yes, Nintendo is very good at innovation. The best, as far as i can tell. But innovation isn't worth much when you don't bring a fun experience to back it up. Which is why i think they need good games like SC2\. I was probably one of the biggest fanboys of the 3DS when it was about to come out, and i still think it's a great idea. But why on earth would i want to buy that thing for 250$ when the only game on it that's worth playing is one where you fly around in an airplane? And if someone mentions OoC… lolno, i've played it often enough on my PC.

The main reason that i've bought way more Nintendo consoles then Microsoft and Sony is because... they've released a lot more often then the other 2 companies. I think Nintendo released once every year? The Xbox was released at about 4 year intervals. The Xbox is also relatively stable, and provides a fantastic gaming experience, both online and offline. Sony is also pretty stable and slightly innovative, even though their online is awful.

I liked the NDS, it was good for its time, and provided some nice games. But the DSi and 3DS are really dropping the ball, as did the Wii.

Most people don't buy innovation unless it has something to back it up. I would rather much buy a stable idea with great content, even if it didn't have the newest design.

If we're to judge companies by their innovation, then Apple is the god of computer/electronics. Obviously though, it isn't.

[Godlord]

@Zonova:

> Am i missing something? Why wouldn't Nintendo want to make a deal with the company that made the 3 most popular games on earth? Is it because of the violence in WoW and Diablo?

Those aren't the most popular games, to be honest. They are however popular, and World of Warcraft and Diablo III are both becoming infamous, actually.

@Zonova:

> Yes, Nintendo is very good at innovation. The best, as far as i can tell. But innovation isn't worth much when you don't bring a fun experience to back it up. Which is why i think they need good games like SC2\. I was probably one of the biggest fanboys of the 3DS when it was about to come out, and i still think it's a great idea. But why on earth would i want to buy that thing for 250$ when the only game on it that's worth playing is one where you fly around in an airplane? And if someone mentions OoC… lolno, i've played it often enough on my PC.
>
> I liked the NDS, it was good for its time, and provided some nice games. But the DSi and 3DS are really dropping the ball, as did the Wii.
>
> Most people don't buy innovation unless it has something to back it up. I would rather much buy a stable idea with great content, even if it didn't have the newest design.

Porting games like Starcraft II isn't the solution, it's just going to be a port, that comes with a set of disadvantages. Just like how most first-person shooters for both the Xbox360 and the PS3 have aiming support, because… well... good luck aiming with a controller. If you have ever played Starcraft II, then you are constantly tapping the keyboard, something I wouldn't see anyone doing on either the NDS or the Wii. I also doubt Blizzard is even interested in targeting Nintendo's platforms for anything, and whether Nintendo would actually provide them a licence.

The biggest problem, and it's in fact the only problem I have with Nintendo is that they have to ban homebrew over and over again (cfr. the 4.3 firmware update for the Wii). If they'd just support it, their consoles would have been a lot better. If only a selected group of developers can develop for the Wii or the NDS, and if they aren't able to produce any good games, then you are going to be stuck with that. Keeping console development closed is also one of the main reasons why computers are more popular.

@Zonova:

> The main reason that i've bought way more Nintendo consoles then Microsoft and Sony is because… they've released a lot more often then the other 2 companies. I think Nintendo released once every year? The Xbox was released at about 4 year
> intervals. The Xbox is also relatively stable, and provides a fantastic gaming experience, both online and offline. Sony is also pretty stable and slightly innovative, even though their online is awful.

I am sorry, Sir, but there are very few games I'd actually play on either of the platforms, especially when at least some of those titles are available for the computer. If I think of any good title that I'd actually bother playing, then it's something like "Persona", "Final Fantasy", "God of War" or "Halo", the majority of games being for the Playstation, and definitely not the Xbox.

The Nintendo DS was released in 2004, the Nintendo DS Lite in 2006, the Nintendo DSi in 2008 and the Nindento 3DS in 2011\. Additionaly the Gameboy Advance in 2001, the Gameboy Colour in 1998 and the Gameboy in 1989\. Considering we shouldn't be comparing the portables with the actual Playstation series and neither the Xbox series: the Nintendo 64 was released in 1996, the Nintendo Gamecube in 2001, the Nintendo Wii in 2006 and the Wii U is scheduled for 2012, which ends up being every five years. Although it is reasonable to say that they do release their products more frequently, isn't that also an indication that they actually care about their consoles, unlike Microsoft (who have only released the Xbox and the Xbox360)?

And yes, the Xbox360 is known for its online game-play, more specifically Halo, which was the best-selling title on the Xbox, and Call of Duty: Blacks Ops on the Xbox360, but for just those games I don't want to buy either consoles. I'd rather enjoy games like Osu! and Trauma Centre.

There isn't much to say about Playstation, because I already mentioned the Playstation Vita being solid and somewhat innovative, but the Playstation 3 isn't something I'd buy, unless it's for Final Fantasy, Persona or something like that, were I to be an actual fan of those games.

@Zonova:

> If we're to judge companies by their innovation, then Apple is the god of computer/electronics. Obviously though, it isn't.

Wait, what? Apple is known for how they have to relate everything to design, and for how over-expensive their products are. They are definitely not known for their innovation, because they do lack tons of it. Start making reasonable comparisons, instead of nonsensical ones like these.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[Bobosk]

> I also doubt Blizzard is even interested in targeting Nintendo's platforms for anything, and whether Nintendo would actually provide them a licence.

wasn't lost vikings for a gameboy of some sort? xD

[renzo]

@Bobosk:

> wasn't lost vikings for a gameboy of some sort? xD

I remember owning it for the SNES, I highly doubt it was for the gameboy considering were talking green and dark green graphics here. :P
Regardless, Blizzard has had dealings with Nintendo in the past, but I think their last game together was the infamous Starcraft 64, and considering how badly that game flopped the idea of putting Starcraft on another one of their consoles probably isn't going to be high in their list of games to port.

[Bobosk]

Oddly enough, i still have my copy of Diablo for the PSone… xD

[Anna Comnena]

I'll only care about Blizzard if a new Blackthorne or Lost Vikings game was in the works. These were both on SNES although they were multiple platform.

I don't know why this thread is talking about Nintendo so much though; anyway Ninja can we get some more info on this TI-84 program?

[saadhamza]

@S.J.R.:

> Wait, what? Apple is known for how they have to relate everything to design, and for how over-expensive their products are. They are definitely not known for their innovation, because they do lack tons of it. Start making reasonable comparisons, instead of nonsensical ones like these.
> Yours faithfully
>   Stephan.

  What the controller looks like on a game console isn't the only form of innovation. Design can also be an innovation. I feel sick for backing up Apple on this one, but i think it's the truth. Sure, they're extremely over priced, and very limited in what you can do with them. But as far as innovation goes, when was the last time you saw a medium performance laptop that was thinner then a pencil? What other company made a hand held capacitive touchscreen cellphone? I'm quite sure that the iPhone was the first one, or at least the first one worth using. They also make Very cool looking All-In-One PC's, and many of their new products have a single sheet design. I'm pretty sure that's what it's called anyways, i'm not too worried about the specifics. Compared to other computers and cellphones, Apples designs are very innovative, which is why i used them as a comparison.

As far as everything else you said goes, i agree with about fifty percent, maybe a bit more but i don't want to reply about it here because Anna's right about it going way off topic… and because i'm really sleepy :3

[mrmiguu]

@Zonova:

> when was the last time you saw a medium performance laptop that was thinner then a pencil?

Nobody else wanted to do this because with the current resources at hand, most laptops would downgrade in quality just like the MacAir did from being a MacPro. They did not really innovate; more so create a gimmick.

[Justin Knight]

I don't think a game like Starcraft on the 3DS would be a great successes.
Here's how it would go down for me:
Person 1: Oh look they ported Starcraft to the 3DS.
Person 2: Wow, way to take all the things I liked about this game and throw them in the trash.
Person 1: What? NO BATTLE.NET!?!
Person 2: Well that's lame, I'm not paying $50 for an rts without wifi play.

[saadhamza]

Well… seeing as Blizzard would be developing it... it would have been pretty good, to say the least. They care about the amount of sales they get. And I hate Battle.net. And i'm guessing their would probably be wifi play o.o'