SC2 lives off nostalgia?
- Thread starter PurpleSky
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You certainly hate a game for no reason other than it didn't innovate. It works well and is fun either way.
So, my question is why aren't games like Age of Empires, Battlezone, and Homeworld practically international sports?
I'm with these two.hyperhammy said:
The forum guidelines say to avoid simply quoting a post and adding this. This post is along similar grounds. Mod.
I really like StarCraft II and I never even played the first one (don't hurt me). They do a good job of folding the story into fun gameplay. And I'm not saying this as a person who doesn't enjoy/hasn't played their far share of RTS games.
Looks like I got ninja'dJeanLuc761 said:
Innovation is great, sure. But SC2 does perfect a certain type of RTS game that you barely see. You (well, the quotee) admits SC1 was a great game in it's day. Sure, people who still claim that are being nostalgic, but going to SC2 it's an updated version of exactly what made the first game so damn good. It's got great balance, fast pace, cool races, a very big and intricate story, amazing production value, awesome competitive play, original player-made maps etc etc. It's not trying to be realistic. It doesn't have cover systems. Doesn't even have squad formations. It's a game about micro management, resource management, and tactics.
So, you're saying you don't enjoy StarCraft 2 because it didn't innovate, from what I'm reading here. Okay, fair enough, but I can't help but feel like your opinion is entirely invalidated because you're blatantly ignoring the in-depth story, the immersion factor involved in the Campaign Mode, and the extensively thought out game progression that leaves you craving more. It takes a lot more than simple nostalgia to weave that together and make it stick.
If your entire gameplay experience is all Ladder matches and the like, perhaps that's the impression you'd come away with. I haven't gotten into the multiplayer stuff too much, myself, I've been too busy playing through one of the best single player campaigns I've ever enjoyed. If you tried the campaign and hated that, too, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just have drastically different tastes? Or maybe you're too fixated on over-complexity in your gaming...
If your entire gameplay experience is all Ladder matches and the like, perhaps that's the impression you'd come away with. I haven't gotten into the multiplayer stuff too much, myself, I've been too busy playing through one of the best single player campaigns I've ever enjoyed. If you tried the campaign and hated that, too, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just have drastically different tastes? Or maybe you're too fixated on over-complexity in your gaming...
Starcraft, and to a lesser extent Starcraft II are spot-on. The games have perfected that style of game play and offer hours of fun while still being highly polished in their presentation.
I think Starcraft II suffers a bit because it is being compared to it's predecessor, much like how the latter Halo titles are unfavourably compared to the original, but all are quality titles in their own right.
I think Starcraft II suffers a bit because it is being compared to it's predecessor, much like how the latter Halo titles are unfavourably compared to the original, but all are quality titles in their own right.
On its own merit, Starcraft 2 is a great sequel to a great game. I feel that it takes a winning formula, and fine tunes it even further. If you liked/loved the first game, you'll most assuredly like/love this one. I wouldn't have asked for anything different. However, SC2 stands squarely on the shoulders of its predecessor. If this had been another IP from another developer, it would have been laughed back into the RTS dark ages from whence it came.
The genre has moved on from these old school gameplay mechanics. Games such as World in Conflict, Homeworld, Dawn of War, and Company of Heroes were celebrated for their advancements in RTS gameplay. While I enjoy the occasional romp through memory lane, I think the genre should continue to move forward. I just hope other publishers/developers don't mimic SC2's style of gameplay trying to cash in on its success; thinking that what works for Blizzard will work for them. I'd say we all lose in that scenario...
EDIT: I would just like to note that this is in regards to the general gameplay of SC2. The story and single player elements of this game are well worth the price alone =).
2nd EDIT: fixed spelling error that kind of changed the entire meaning of a sentence....
The genre has moved on from these old school gameplay mechanics. Games such as World in Conflict, Homeworld, Dawn of War, and Company of Heroes were celebrated for their advancements in RTS gameplay. While I enjoy the occasional romp through memory lane, I think the genre should continue to move forward. I just hope other publishers/developers don't mimic SC2's style of gameplay trying to cash in on its success; thinking that what works for Blizzard will work for them. I'd say we all lose in that scenario...
EDIT: I would just like to note that this is in regards to the general gameplay of SC2. The story and single player elements of this game are well worth the price alone =).
2nd EDIT: fixed spelling error that kind of changed the entire meaning of a sentence....
SC2 does what a sequel should do. It fine tunes the mechanics of the original system and uses the previous game as a jumping off point for the story. It's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
Well, after Dawn of war was such a bad game it was kinda nice to play Starcraft 2, which is far more story driven and interesting to me.
Dawn of war one might have had a bit of a strong start with its first game and expansion but the latter two expansions were essentially glorified map packs. Maybe two pages of story in dialogue while fighting the other races main base. The stale campaign could have been easily replicated by playing a dozen or so random maps, occasional talking to yourself in a smokers voice.
Dawn of War 2 may have 'advanced' the genre by removing bases but i find that to be its weakest flaw after repeatedly using the same map over and over and over again. Quite honestly if i could have returned the dawn of war series i would have, stupid PC games not being allowed to be traded in...
More to the point Starcraft 2 sticks to the K.I.S.S mantra. Something i wish Harvest moon figured out. Now that its nothing more then a mess of bullshit meant to distract me from growing my god damn crops.
Finally. Nostalgia wouldn't be a good word to use for me in particular. I wasn't actually that thrilled with Starcraft one's campaign. The online custom component is mostly while i played that game for so long. Unlike Starcraft 2 where I couldn't get enough of the Campaign and raced through it everyday eager to take on the next mission. A direct comparison for me only makes the original look worse in my eyes.
Not only but Blizzard did add customization in the form of the armory, laboratory and mercenaries.
Its a good game that I enjoyed every minute of. Where as i got bored playing the originals campaign. People say they changed nothing, I have to say they did seeing as they made the game a good hundred times better for me.
Dawn of war one might have had a bit of a strong start with its first game and expansion but the latter two expansions were essentially glorified map packs. Maybe two pages of story in dialogue while fighting the other races main base. The stale campaign could have been easily replicated by playing a dozen or so random maps, occasional talking to yourself in a smokers voice.
Dawn of War 2 may have 'advanced' the genre by removing bases but i find that to be its weakest flaw after repeatedly using the same map over and over and over again. Quite honestly if i could have returned the dawn of war series i would have, stupid PC games not being allowed to be traded in...
More to the point Starcraft 2 sticks to the K.I.S.S mantra. Something i wish Harvest moon figured out. Now that its nothing more then a mess of bullshit meant to distract me from growing my god damn crops.
Finally. Nostalgia wouldn't be a good word to use for me in particular. I wasn't actually that thrilled with Starcraft one's campaign. The online custom component is mostly while i played that game for so long. Unlike Starcraft 2 where I couldn't get enough of the Campaign and raced through it everyday eager to take on the next mission. A direct comparison for me only makes the original look worse in my eyes.
Not only but Blizzard did add customization in the form of the armory, laboratory and mercenaries.
Its a good game that I enjoyed every minute of. Where as i got bored playing the originals campaign. People say they changed nothing, I have to say they did seeing as they made the game a good hundred times better for me.
StarCraft II is an excellent game, and so is StarCraft. The first innovated RTS gameplay, and is still a great game to this day. I can pick up StarCraft and enjoy it more than, say, Stronghold or Homeworld.
Blizzard stated explicitly that they didn't care about innovating their gameplay. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100215-Blizzard-Doesnt-Care-About-Innovation-for-StarCraft-II] They had a winning formula that people wanted more of, and they gave the people more of it. They added units, removed units, shuffled some things about, released an amazing map editor to go along with it, had a great, fun campaign that almost never felt samey. But really, at its core, it's the same game. They didn't innovate because they already knew that their original formula was going to work, and it really does.
Blizzard stated explicitly that they didn't care about innovating their gameplay. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100215-Blizzard-Doesnt-Care-About-Innovation-for-StarCraft-II] They had a winning formula that people wanted more of, and they gave the people more of it. They added units, removed units, shuffled some things about, released an amazing map editor to go along with it, had a great, fun campaign that almost never felt samey. But really, at its core, it's the same game. They didn't innovate because they already knew that their original formula was going to work, and it really does.
I lol'd, even though I was about to say the same exact thing.Matt_LRR said:
I'm pretty sure a lot of people will get ninja'd.TylerC said:
I played the first one, but I got it... I don't know, this April? I hesitantly got it because my friends were looking forward to SC2, and were getting into SC1 again. So, not having really liked some of the RTS games I had played, I was reluctant. Silly me.
I agree with the quote in the OP.Warrior Irme said:
I don't hate, or even thoroughly dislike it. It's just it took them 11 years to make the game and they did... what exactly? I'm glad I played a friends copy before purchasing it myself, I would've been very disappointed at spending 60 dollars (for a pc game, no less) to get an updated campaign with some new units. Granted, the campaign itself is interesting but... it's still the same ol' starcraft I played for so many years and got sick of about as many years ago. A true sequel, I'm hesitant to call it that. For people who just wanted a prettier version, that's great and I'm happy for you guys. I've always gotten good quality and step-forwards in gameplay, at least moderate if not revolutionary from Blizzard, and in this regard, SC2 is a letdown.
What Matt said, and "Don't fix what isn't broke."
What Blizzard does is take a proven formula and perfect it and polish it. They don't try adding gimmicks that ruin the game and yadayadayada
Also, explain how Starcraft is an insanely popular e-sport where people get paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and no other RTS is even an e-sport at all?
What Blizzard does is take a proven formula and perfect it and polish it. They don't try adding gimmicks that ruin the game and yadayadayada
Also, explain how Starcraft is an insanely popular e-sport where people get paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and no other RTS is even an e-sport at all?
I'm going to have to agree with the OP and MisterShine. Though it may not be working quite as well as Blizzard have hoped, seeing as they got pushed off the top spot for sales in the UK by Toy Story 3, whilst Modern Warfare 2 came along again to claim second place. Just learned that now.
Source, if you want: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/08/09/toy-story-3-reclaims-top-spot-as-starcraft-ii-slumps/
The 'game' at number three horrified me, however. This slump just be because most people interested in SC2 were the ones who pre-ordered or spent a week camping out outside a game store.
Source, if you want: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/08/09/toy-story-3-reclaims-top-spot-as-starcraft-ii-slumps/
The 'game' at number three horrified me, however. This slump just be because most people interested in SC2 were the ones who pre-ordered or spent a week camping out outside a game store.
I must argue here.John Funk said:
Chess has 3D combat, and if you have a magnifying glass there's tactical zoom as well.