I'm sorry but it's a sequel... the story should evolve and there should be a handful of differences, but the core gameplay should stay pretty much the same. People buy a sequal because it is like the original, because it continues on. If you want something different you should try a new IP.maninahat said:
A View From The Road: The StarCraft Dilemma
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
There is absolutely no-doubt in my mind that Starcraft II must have been hard to make. If it cam out in 98, the last time i remember playing was about 06. Thats almost 10 years of me playing and i loved it. I can only hope it is as good if not better than 1.
Part of my love originally for SC was the horrible graphics, of course relative to what i was playing in 06 they were horrible. I loved my alien folks, just because of the organic nature of their graphics even if it looks creepy on those big pixels.
Part of my love originally for SC was the horrible graphics, of course relative to what i was playing in 06 they were horrible. I loved my alien folks, just because of the organic nature of their graphics even if it looks creepy on those big pixels.
After playing the C&C4 beta I'm apprehensive about Starcraft 2. Essentially the typical RTS has two layers; the base building/economic layer and the combat/strategy layer. C&C4 pretty much dumps the first layer in favor of the second, and it succeeds with it quite well. With the elimination of base building, the turtle strategy simply no longer works and you have to be offensive. Considering that I am a rush player I enjoy this because it means I don't need to worry about perfect harvester/resource ratios and can concentrate more on battlefield tactics.
Turtle players hate it and I can understand why. They're used to building impenetrable walls of defenses which no enemy can counter, then they win by default. Many games try to discourage this strategy with things like limited resources (hated by all) or defense-busting super weapons (which generally break the game for everyone else). The turtle strategy tends to be favored by players who can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of the combat layer; they don't want to field an effective fighting force, they just want to spam tanks and space lasers until they win.
I can't remember how many games of Starcraft I joined labeled "NO RUSH NO ATTACK 30 MIN" and would Zerg rush the crap out of them, then laugh while they all rage quit. Zerg was built for rushing; would they follow a "NO BATTLESHIP NO CARRIER" rule? I doubt it.
Turtle players hate it and I can understand why. They're used to building impenetrable walls of defenses which no enemy can counter, then they win by default. Many games try to discourage this strategy with things like limited resources (hated by all) or defense-busting super weapons (which generally break the game for everyone else). The turtle strategy tends to be favored by players who can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of the combat layer; they don't want to field an effective fighting force, they just want to spam tanks and space lasers until they win.
I can't remember how many games of Starcraft I joined labeled "NO RUSH NO ATTACK 30 MIN" and would Zerg rush the crap out of them, then laugh while they all rage quit. Zerg was built for rushing; would they follow a "NO BATTLESHIP NO CARRIER" rule? I doubt it.
Yes, that makes sense. Sometimes you want only new content, some new gameplay updates/additions to keep the game fresh and build on solid foundations.
New franchises can always be the ones to attempt to revolutionise games, without compromising franchises which already have huge fan bases.
New franchises can always be the ones to attempt to revolutionise games, without compromising franchises which already have huge fan bases.
It's always a tough balance.. and it really does vary from game to game. Sometimes all you want is a glorified expansion pack, sometimes you want something that takes the successes of the first and completes the package with altered/tweaked/brand new stuff. Personally, I'm always a little disappointed when a sequel to a game I love doesn't really change anything at all. I've also, of course, been disappointed when changes are made and the game loses what I liked so much about it in the first place (the Star Ocean series after SO2 for example). I guess I'll just never win. Hehe
Shamus does bring up a good point though. I'm a fighting game nut, but you only need to look at that genre for a concrete example. I can jump in and play almost any fighter released with a little adjustment period, and I scoff at games that haven't advanced depth wise much beyond SF2. At the same time, however, I realize that part of what made SF2 so popular was the appeal of it being something new that anyone could get into and play, maybe even stealing a win from a vet here and there. Add too much depth and complexity with each iteration and eventually you will make a game untouchable to the newcomer.
Shamus does bring up a good point though. I'm a fighting game nut, but you only need to look at that genre for a concrete example. I can jump in and play almost any fighter released with a little adjustment period, and I scoff at games that haven't advanced depth wise much beyond SF2. At the same time, however, I realize that part of what made SF2 so popular was the appeal of it being something new that anyone could get into and play, maybe even stealing a win from a vet here and there. Add too much depth and complexity with each iteration and eventually you will make a game untouchable to the newcomer.
I think the lack of LAN is going to really hurt Starcraft 2. Anyone who's played on battle.net often enough knows how much it sucks. So, they're revamping the servers but how long will that last? I'm not interested in the same crap of being booted from a game every 5 minutes or so only to be faced with a Realm Down error that doesn't let you back in for a long time.
I don't care how much they've "improved" battle.net. This is going to come back and bite them in the ass. I was originally going to buy this game without hesitation but now I'm going to have to wait and see how long it takes before battle.net gets over choking to death on the flood of people who buy this game.
I don't care how much they've "improved" battle.net. This is going to come back and bite them in the ass. I was originally going to buy this game without hesitation but now I'm going to have to wait and see how long it takes before battle.net gets over choking to death on the flood of people who buy this game.
A balanced, polished to mirror shine multiplayer was always the first thing that came to mind after thinking "Starcraft". I did, however, enjoy the single player campaign as well. As much as I'd love Blizzard to cater hardcore players and Koreans in the multi by staying pretty much the same, I expected the single player to be innovative (to the franchise, not necessarily to gaming as a whole).
And you know what? After seeing the BlizzCon footage of the single player aspect of the game I got pleasantly surprised. With that in mind I wouldn't rant about SC2 being "not innovative at all" just yet.
And you know what? After seeing the BlizzCon footage of the single player aspect of the game I got pleasantly surprised. With that in mind I wouldn't rant about SC2 being "not innovative at all" just yet.
Sequels are not the place to go innovation crazy, a new idea here or there maybe and serious polish. Unfortunately, it is far too lucrative to just do that again and again (NINTENDO!!!). I think Bioware was smart with what they did with Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Set up a trilogy you build up a fanbase and make some polished sequels. Afterwards they keep using the same universe to attract fans but with a new series of games have a chance to try something different. Ok so it's Bioware meaning that its gonna be dialogue and party combat without fail but in general the template is there to insure lucrative success (as long as the original trilogy worked out) while still having room to expand gaming. Stop innovating and we'll never know what we might have missed.
I think most of us consider ourselves casual fans of Starcraft, relative to tournament players and most of South Korea, so I think we take for granted a lot of the innovation in the game. Which, actually, I think may be intentional on Blizzard's part.
Looking through new units and abilities, I've been really wow'd by some of the strategies I see play out in my head. For many of us it feels like the same old Starcraft, but on higher levels of play this is going to be a COMPLETELY different game.
I think Blizzard may have achieved something really amazing in that sense. Of course, there's always the risk it could be too much of the same for most players and way too different for competitive players. It's possible, but I think it will end up going over really well with most fans, and do great in the competitive space if Blizzard acts quick in balancing strategies in the first year.
But I still want my freakin' LAN support damnit...
Looking through new units and abilities, I've been really wow'd by some of the strategies I see play out in my head. For many of us it feels like the same old Starcraft, but on higher levels of play this is going to be a COMPLETELY different game.
I think Blizzard may have achieved something really amazing in that sense. Of course, there's always the risk it could be too much of the same for most players and way too different for competitive players. It's possible, but I think it will end up going over really well with most fans, and do great in the competitive space if Blizzard acts quick in balancing strategies in the first year.
But I still want my freakin' LAN support damnit...
hmm maybe that's the starcraft one only then... when i was constantly on wc3 online i sometimes went for 8 hours and having to switch games quite a few times because they ended.(also custom maps ftw) I have never had an realm down error or getting booted back to mainscreen aslong as i still had internet and blizzard didn't have maitainance.LordZ said:
and this is for over 2 years on and off gaming (hell i occasionally jump on battle net now to see if there's a fun NON DOTA map going on.
I really want to play Starcraft 2 I thought for awhile there they were never going to make another one. I sort of forgot about all of it. After seeing that trailor I got excited. I even checked the website a few times last year and watched that demo video 10 times. I've never been a part of the flood that occurs when a game is just released. I just hope they release it during a holiday weekend and I have nothing to do. Because when it comes time to play the game. I'M NOT LEAVING THE HOUSE!
Ironic that this gets posted today - when I checked my mail this morning a surprise was awaiting me: "Hello good sir, you've been invited to the Starcraft II Beta!"
Yes, I had to bounce around the room a few times. Then I had time for one game before heading off to school, which resulted in me getting my ass kicked because I forgot to build air defense. My zealots were waving at the two warships that glided in over my base. Woooops.
Yes, I had to bounce around the room a few times. Then I had time for one game before heading off to school, which resulted in me getting my ass kicked because I forgot to build air defense. My zealots were waving at the two warships that glided in over my base. Woooops.
Starcraft is 12 years old. It's fine for Assassins Creed to do a sequel that just irons out the kinks because that's all it takes to get up to standard. Starcraft needs a lot more than a few minor tweaks to get up to the standard Relic have set in the meantime. Would you be happy if Pong 2 added HD graphics, a couple of different bat options and charged 40 quid?
ME1 and ME2 are good examples of good change in a sequel. changes are noticeable but for the better. But yes Sequels do need to feel similar. HOWEVER, seeing that new ips have done the RTS genre better in those 12 years SC2 seems dated gameplay wise to me 
still gonna buy it but probably not launch, unless there is some kind of preorder incentive like guarantee entrance to Diablo 3 beta >:3
still gonna buy it but probably not launch, unless there is some kind of preorder incentive like guarantee entrance to Diablo 3 beta >:3
The popularity of Starcraft was largely inflated by the market it accidentally filled in South Korea, which happened for social, cultural and financial reasons rather than the game being so undeniably brilliant that it enslaved a whole nation.
Starcraft sold as many copies in Korea as it sold in the rest of the world combined. It's obvious that the sequel has been tailored specifically for this market. Anything else would be financially retarded. This is also the reason why it's taken so long to develop. They won't risk screwing up a surefire hit like this by not tuning the multiplayer sufficiently, or not making sure it runs perfectly on low-end systems, even at the expense of dating the graphics or suffering lower sales domestically.
The worldwide popularity and sales of Starcraft 2 will likely depend on whether or not the majority of computer hardware present in cybercafes in Korea will be able to run it smoothly without forcing people to play on low resolutions. And little else, really. I mean, it's Starcraft 1 with better graphics and more specialist units.
Starcraft sold as many copies in Korea as it sold in the rest of the world combined. It's obvious that the sequel has been tailored specifically for this market. Anything else would be financially retarded. This is also the reason why it's taken so long to develop. They won't risk screwing up a surefire hit like this by not tuning the multiplayer sufficiently, or not making sure it runs perfectly on low-end systems, even at the expense of dating the graphics or suffering lower sales domestically.
The worldwide popularity and sales of Starcraft 2 will likely depend on whether or not the majority of computer hardware present in cybercafes in Korea will be able to run it smoothly without forcing people to play on low resolutions. And little else, really. I mean, it's Starcraft 1 with better graphics and more specialist units.
