A View From The Road: The StarCraft Dilemma

[Cody211282]

I wouldn't mind getting the game, but if they are still releasing each campaign as a separate game then it's not going to be worth the money.

 

[TheMatt]

I still think Tassadar(sic?) ramming that carrier into the Overmind was the most badass cinematic of all time.

Gah, I still get chills thinking about the first time I saw it.

Entar'u Ad'un... as the kids say.

 

[John Funk]

I wouldn't mind getting the game, but if they are still releasing each campaign as a separate game then it's not going to be worth the money.

One game, two expansion packs. Each campaign is going to have as many missions as the first StarCraft did in total.

I really don't see the problem.

 

[Enigmers]

I'm gonna regurgitate what has already been said by saying that Starcraft II looks awesome just the way it is. I'd be fine with them just making "Starcraft HD;" that with new units, a new campaign, Battle.net 2.0 (the biggest feature, in my opinion, as it was hard as hell to join a friends game in the original Starcraft). That's enough for me, really.

 

[Cody211282]

I wouldn't mind getting the game, but if they are still releasing each campaign as a separate game then it's not going to be worth the money.

One game, two expansion packs. Each campaign is going to have as many missions as the first StarCraft did in total.

I really don't see the problem.

I know they wouldn't try to still me on missions but I just don't like the fact that I'm paying for 2 expansion packs to finish the story, mostly because the only thing I care about is single player and a LAN game every now and then

 

[warps]

I know they wouldn't try to still me on missions but I just don't like the face that I'm paying for 2 expansion packs to finish the story(...)

As if the very same thing weren't true for ANY game that is the direct sequel and uses the same engine. Gears of War, Halo, Dawn of War with all of it's expansions, Assassin's Creed, and I could go on like this for quite a long time. That's what these "sequels" are - expansions with little innovation and further story.

 

[UtopiaV1]

Good article, made me think, but really?

...And now that I've had a chance to play it in depth, I wouldn't have it any other way.

That's how you choose to end it? With a cliche? Unless that was your purpose, an ironic self-referential wink to your anti-innovation argument...

Huh, guess i look dumb now...

 

[Cody211282]

I know they wouldn't try to still me on missions but I just don't like the face that I'm paying for 2 expansion packs to finish the story(...)

As if the very same thing weren't true for ANY game that is the direct sequel and uses the same engine. Gears of War, Halo, Dawn of War with all of it's expansions, Assassin's Creed, and I could go on like this for quite a long time. That's what these "sequels" are - expansions with little innovation and further story.

If it ends up that the games story doesn't leave you hanging at the end Halo 2 style I would love to look into it, I just don't like investing time/monsy into something that isn't complete by itself.

 

[oathblade]

My sisters and I still have LAN parties to play Broodwars. <.<
It sounds like this will be a great game. not really new but hey Ive been begging to find out what happened to the Queen of Blades for some time now

 

[warps]

If it ends up that the games story doesn't leave you hanging at the end Halo 2 style I would love to look into it, I just don't like investing time/monsy into something that isn't complete by itself.

Since that's your problem I suggest you wait till the actual game is released before discrediting it because of a 2 years old news.

 

[Lerxst]

What's the big deal about SC in general? I found it monotonous and predictable the first time around. There was always one sure-fire strategy that won every map in the game and in 98, online gaming wasn't exactly huge or user-friendly.

I take ZP's stance in that a game needs to stand up as a single player title alone. SC failed in that department but I can't blame the game itself. AI ha sits limitations and in a RTS game it stands out more than a FPS or RPG.

 

[maninahat]

Nah, I'm afraid I disagree. I'm the kind of guy that does want innovation, especially in RTSs. I played on Command and Conquer 3, and was fairly annoyed that after all this time, very little had actually changed. If the game is too much like the original, why make the sequel at all? Why should I pay good money for what is essentially the same game again? People probably won't be impressed by something similar to a decade old product, especially when they have played every other strategy game which has copied its style since then. It will just feel like a recycled experience.

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.

I'd buy that reasoning if the SC sequel came out only a short time after the original, But this has been ten years. Gaming has evolved a great deal since then, as have RTSs. I'm concerned that SC2's whole gameplay style will be dated to the point that people will find nothing fresh. Considering SC 1 was famed for being a big new step in the RTS genre. Surely SC 2 should attempt to create that next big push?

 

[warps]

Surely SC 2 should attempt to create that next big push?

You've got 10 seconds to name one Blizzard game that was innovative in any way.

None? Then why are their games selling so well? Go figure.

 

[maninahat]

Surely SC 2 should attempt to create that next big push?

You've got 10 seconds to name one Blizzard game that was innovative in any way.

None? Then why are their games selling so well? Go figure.

Is that somekind of joke, or are you just ignorant of Blizzard's legacy? They are credited with pioneering in RTS (Star Craft and WarCraft II), and RPG (Diablo). They weren't responsible for the initial popularity of MMORPGs, but they did simplify the concept enough to make it accessable to casual players in World Of WarCraft. In much the same way that sandbox games get referred to as "GTA clones", RPGs get referred to as Diablo clones. Blizzard as one heck of a legacy; that is the reason we discuss their new releases in the first place.

 

[Cody211282]

If it ends up that the games story doesn't leave you hanging at the end Halo 2 style I would love to look into it, I just don't like investing time/money into something that isn't complete by itself.

Since that's your problem I suggest you wait till the actual game is released before discrediting it because of a 2 years old news.

I'm not discrediting it I'm just speculative of how much money they are trying to squeeze out of me, ever since the Blizzard/Activision they have tried to do a few questionable things.