SC2 lives off nostalgia?
- Thread starter PurpleSky
- Start date
WC3 is actually played fairly competitively ( http://www.iccup.com/ ) but Starcraft took the trophy by already having a dedicated fanbase the time WC3 came out.megapenguinx said:
I do like SC2, I also like SC1. But I do agree that it lives of nostalgia. I also don't believe it could have been any other way without a lot of hate from SC1 core fanbase.
Also, @quote in OP, Homeworld 1 was a lot better than Homeworld 2 in terms or storyline and tactics. In terms of UI and gameplay mechanics though, Cataclysm was far superior. HW1 to HW:C is my favourite example of innovation while keeping the fanbase by keeping everything similar but new. HW1 was a brilliant game, but the UI and game mechanics had a few flaws. So HW:C continued after HW1 finished, keeping to the story as it likely would have went, with a sub-group of the main race with totally different units but the old ones still in play by friendly NPC's, with the UI based off the first one but refined to be pretty much faultless. And they released this a year after the original. So SC2 has been a bit of a let down in terms of time taken to make it and innovations, but it doesn't make it a bad game.
Also, @quote in OP, Homeworld 1 was a lot better than Homeworld 2 in terms or storyline and tactics. In terms of UI and gameplay mechanics though, Cataclysm was far superior. HW1 to HW:C is my favourite example of innovation while keeping the fanbase by keeping everything similar but new. HW1 was a brilliant game, but the UI and game mechanics had a few flaws. So HW:C continued after HW1 finished, keeping to the story as it likely would have went, with a sub-group of the main race with totally different units but the old ones still in play by friendly NPC's, with the UI based off the first one but refined to be pretty much faultless. And they released this a year after the original. So SC2 has been a bit of a let down in terms of time taken to make it and innovations, but it doesn't make it a bad game.
I never played star craft, war craft..or any thing by blizzard, I just now got starcraft...and its very simplistic I'm having a hard time playing it with 648x400 or whatever resolution it uses, its simplistic sprites and its old hat rts abbilities, not when Im used to empire earth 2 and supreme commander.
So do you hate cars because they have wheels or doors OP?
You don't just innovate just for the heck of adding something new into your game, no additional value is added in that way.
Innovation is a response to a certain need: man wants to have a cart that moves over terrain, man sees round objects roll better so man invents wheel.
Subsequent inventions make the wheel rounder and make the ride smoother.
It's the same thing for Starcraft; the formula in SC1 was already very well done for the content of that game, so they polished it up and made the ride smoother.
How someone could have expected a completely new game from a sequel in the first place is also beyond me and I'm sure they would have received an equal amount of counter QQ (well deserved) for that game not being Starcraft at all...
You don't just innovate just for the heck of adding something new into your game, no additional value is added in that way.
Innovation is a response to a certain need: man wants to have a cart that moves over terrain, man sees round objects roll better so man invents wheel.
Subsequent inventions make the wheel rounder and make the ride smoother.
It's the same thing for Starcraft; the formula in SC1 was already very well done for the content of that game, so they polished it up and made the ride smoother.
How someone could have expected a completely new game from a sequel in the first place is also beyond me and I'm sure they would have received an equal amount of counter QQ (well deserved) for that game not being Starcraft at all...
In my opinion, starcraft 2 is a really good game. It's polished, the story is good, it has many jokes, but the important thing is the gameplay: it's really, really well done.
Why would I care if it doesn't re-invent the wheel? It's FUN!
Yes, it has problems, especially the bnet 2.0 thing ( no chatrooms? WHAT?!?!) but on the whole I see no reason to downrank the game.
Why would I care if it doesn't re-invent the wheel? It's FUN!
Yes, it has problems, especially the bnet 2.0 thing ( no chatrooms? WHAT?!?!) but on the whole I see no reason to downrank the game.
sure stracrft2 didnt do anything new but what is did was shine evrything in the rts genre to a shie. it is hard to find a game with this much polish and with races that are balanced without being mirrors of each other. each race has its advantages and disadvantages but they equal each other out. that is why sc2 is an amazing game
I haven't really played StarCraft at all, and I generally dislike RTS.
Yet StarCraft II still sucked me in and had me sit through the single player campaign, which is rare for me these days. And I've had some good fun on Battle.net lately.
It doesn't have all the gimmicks of other RTS games because it doesn't need them, it just works, and it's as simple as that.
Seeing as I never really played the original StarCraft but love the sequel, I'll dare say that nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Maybe for some people it's a factor, but it is still a very solid game on its own.
Yet StarCraft II still sucked me in and had me sit through the single player campaign, which is rare for me these days. And I've had some good fun on Battle.net lately.
It doesn't have all the gimmicks of other RTS games because it doesn't need them, it just works, and it's as simple as that.
Seeing as I never really played the original StarCraft but love the sequel, I'll dare say that nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Maybe for some people it's a factor, but it is still a very solid game on its own.
Starcraft 2 doesn't live off nostalgia.
That's like saying baseball lives off nostalgia.
Starcraft is a sport.
That's like saying baseball lives off nostalgia.
Starcraft is a sport.
Now let's just say it does thrive off of nostalgia and a large fanbase, nothing out of the ordinary right?
To put it simply "no sh*t" of course I could be wrong, or am I right? I will answer this question with another question. Why are you surprised? You said it yourself, as what is hapening with Starcraft 2 has happend with World of Warcraft and many predasesors before. Therefore we can conclude that this is a waste of time, or is it not?
What I am saying is that the question you seek is not the question you asked, but the question that I will ask for you now. Is there a solution to this redundant mess we have repeated year by year, rather does the majority really perfer simplicity over complexity, redundance over change?
Answer that for me and you shall have your answer, good day sir.
To put it simply "no sh*t" of course I could be wrong, or am I right? I will answer this question with another question. Why are you surprised? You said it yourself, as what is hapening with Starcraft 2 has happend with World of Warcraft and many predasesors before. Therefore we can conclude that this is a waste of time, or is it not?
What I am saying is that the question you seek is not the question you asked, but the question that I will ask for you now. Is there a solution to this redundant mess we have repeated year by year, rather does the majority really perfer simplicity over complexity, redundance over change?
Answer that for me and you shall have your answer, good day sir.
I think the reason most people are saying this is because they never played SCI they don't care if SCII is too much like the first or not. But what I dont understand is that SCII succeeded as a sequal because it was able to live up to the the reputation that the first SC had all these years later, bringing with it new and more interesting techniques as a game, making it more than able to compete with any other modern RTS.TylerC said:
So basically I'm saying is that I think SCII doesn't need nostalgia from the first game to convince people to buy it. And I don't think many people who bought it cared about nostalgia anyway.
I'm at a crossroads on Blizzard...
There are new units in multiplayer and the single player is great. My problem becomes the very fact that the multiplayer is the same thing with newer graphics.
If I look at Company of Heroes, that was great because it really forced a mobile way to fight. If there were a few new elements to the multi, I probably wouldn't complain. But after 10 years, the only true incentive to play the multi is to compete at a game that's been played for Ten. Years! What would have worked was to incorporate a few of the campaign modes into the multi so they aren't two separate things. For example, if you could have an upgrade so you don't need an SCV to mine Vespene, I would have been happy to do that.
If the other two races could get a sampling of these mods, I would have welcomed that diversity. As it stands, I have no interest in playing this game since I already have SC1.
There are new units in multiplayer and the single player is great. My problem becomes the very fact that the multiplayer is the same thing with newer graphics.
If I look at Company of Heroes, that was great because it really forced a mobile way to fight. If there were a few new elements to the multi, I probably wouldn't complain. But after 10 years, the only true incentive to play the multi is to compete at a game that's been played for Ten. Years! What would have worked was to incorporate a few of the campaign modes into the multi so they aren't two separate things. For example, if you could have an upgrade so you don't need an SCV to mine Vespene, I would have been happy to do that.
If the other two races could get a sampling of these mods, I would have welcomed that diversity. As it stands, I have no interest in playing this game since I already have SC1.
