SC2 lives off nostalgia?

[Roganzar]

I never played Starcraft but I love Starcraft 2. Thread terminated.

Ditto

 

[Therumancer]

It really bothers me that people consider games like Starcraft 1/2 to be superior to a next generation RTS such as World In Conflict/Company of Heroes. Starcraft 1 was a great game when it came out in 1998, but when people keep saying shit like "Starcraft is the best RTS" I facepalm.

Really? A game with basic RTS mechanics (though it lacked que-build back in the day) is superior to 3d graphics, complex combat, and tactical depth? I really like Age of Empires 2, classic RTS, but do you know what? It isn't as good as Homeworld 2 (I have heard the first one is better) or Opposing Fronts, I know difference between nostalgia and game that is still good.

On the other end of the spectrum we have games like Stronghold: Crusader and Battlezone, games that perfected a niche (and would eventually have inferior sequels) and have yet to be de-throned. The difference between these games is that the former no longer can claim originality in their gameplay, while the latter can. Battlezone has a completely functional and easy-to-use system that combines RTS and TPS gameplay, with Stronghold having a castle sim and RTS hybrid that keeps it from bogging down and becoming stale.

You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future; or else it becomes a game that lives on nostalgia.

Not my own words, but I agree entirely,you?

*Yes,I am really set on becoming "that guy" that hates one particular game,it shall be SC2 for me, don't know why, maybe I hate Blizzard for asking monthly subscriptions -edit-(WoW)*

I'm not a huge RTS fan, but I think "Starcraft" is in a league of it's own. Part of this is the writing and characters and concepts that caught on with people and they really liked. I think the Starcraft II world and characters like Raynor and Kerrigan have a lot to do with it's success. Consider that while it was pathetic they even did a PnP RPG supplement off of it for the old "Alternity" game. The point being that there is more to it than the game itself.

Beyond this, it's also important to note that "Starcraft" has perfect game balance, and oddly it seems that this has continued on to "Starcraft 2". While you can look at other RTS games and talk about how you think they are superior, and perhaps even make some good cases, in the end people do tend to complain about the balance. "Starcraft" on the other hand was able to generate massive competitive leagues of players, and inspire people enough where they actually put prize money up for it.

To put things into perspective, while a lot of fun, I hear lots of arguements about how broken games like "Dawn Of War" (Soulstorm and Dark Crusade are my personal favorites for single player) is from a multiplayer perspective. Not to mention the whole issue of people saying NoD is unbalanced with Command and Conquer (which I haven't played much of). I mean sure these statements can be argued, but the simple fact that we (and others) can argue about them explain why those series aren't where "Starcraft" is.

My point here being is that Starcraft is a "perfect storm" when it comes to gaming, something that Blizzard seems to manage to create with some frequency. Few people are interested enough in the campaigns/characters in say "Strongholds: Crusaders" or "Battlezone" (such as they are) for anyone to have turned "Kekekekekeke Zerg Rush!" into a meme, and heck while I'm not a huge genere fan or a big RTS multiplayer guy, I will say that eventually I'm going to get "Star Craft 2" at some point just to see how the storyline turns out.

To be honest the only other RTS that has a storyline anyone cares about to any extent right now, is probably "Command And Conquer" and that is mostly due to the "OMG, this is so awful that it's actually entertaining" factor, as opposed to "Starcraft" which while fairly simplistic is pretty much acknowleged as being genuinely good.

Such are my thoughts, I mean feel free to be "That Guy" if you want to be, but I think your not considering the most important elements here. Besides, ask yourself if you REALLY think the game balance in some of those other RTS games is as good as Starcraft. Are you sure of this to the point where you think people would play it for money, without one faction being overwhelmingly favored or scorned?

 

[Nifarious]

Man, Chess really lives off of nostalgia. It's so basic. I don't get how anyone can play a game without 3d combat, tactical zoom, terrain bonuses and cover mechanics. Chess is so dated.

Exactly. Most people's responses here get directly to the point. I think that most people arguing for the OP's point of view either haven't played the game or didn't want to give it a chance in the first place. The argument for change is actually just an argument that SC2 be like other more recent RTSs. SC2 has instead revolutionized the game without making it not Starcraft. SC's a game that has thrived for 11 years and has a very strong pro scene. It'd be idiotic to change that just like it'd be idiotic to 'revolutionize' basketball. SC2's mechanics are simultaneously very intuitive and offer a great range of depth for improvement. The unit makeup, while perhaps retaining some flaws (but that can only be certain years from now), presents a limitless range of creativity. You could just stick to plain old MMM and find a great range of use for just those same basic units, over and over each game. You only have to watch the pros to get a sense of this. You could write off sonnets on the complaint that iambic pentameter is so stifling, but if you work to develop an eye for it, a world of possibility opens up to you.

Anyway, I'm tired of other gamers getting butthurt over a game that has a very strong fan base that's NOT composed of a bunch of snotty BM emo self-entitled teenagers and using blind straw-man arguments to write it off. If you want to 'get' the game, then actually look into it rather than use your own system of critique that in no way applies to the game in question.
What a waste.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I hate how Blizzard no longer makes games, but products.

Really? Because, uh, SC2 seems like a pretty good *game* to me...

It's an alright game, there are certainly better recent RTSs.

Interesting game - imagine that Starcraft was never made. All of a sudden, a polished, well presented, ok graphicsed RTS came out with gameplay from 1998. Would you buy it?

BAHAHAHA! oh, ignorance like this always makes me laugh. if you own any of the following, you offically are a massive hypocrite, and need to be de-voice box'ed

Call of duty 4
Call of duty 4 2
halo 2/3
super mario galaxy
any legend of zelda after 2000
gears of war (any)
medal of honor (any)
oblivion


why? because all of these games are just better graphics sellotaped onto games from before 2000. i understand that taking risks is integral to progress in video games, but sometimes you just want something simply deep (if that makes any sense). if you want to patronize an indie game dev because of their new, wacky, innovative ideas, go ahead, i encourage it, i am one such dev. but when a company that is clearly not trying to innovate beyond what will make a previous idea better, complaining about a lack of new ideas is like complaining how the government doesnt try to make good decisions.

I promised to be out of this thread, but I just couldn't resist here:
Guess what?

I don't own any of those games except for Halo2/3 (which I don't play, and haven't for a loooooong ass time) and Oblivion (which I didn't buy, and have voiced my opinion against wherever I can)!

Nice try though - I admire you're ability to assume

 

[Atmos Duality]

When people are resorting to playing the "Nostalgia card" as their best argument, then that's usually a sign that they ran out of rational, objective arguments.
Why? 'Nostalgia' is an emotional response. Y'know...subjective feeling/reasoning.

I find Starcraft 2 to be surprisingly fun. That's my opinion.
Anyone trying to prove that wrong is trying to play God.

 

[martin's a madman]

I just like it because I enjoy it more.

It's not Nostalgia, because when I was young playing Starcraft 1 I got rocked repeatedly. Wasn't the most fun experience overall.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

Actually I think it's as good as it's predecessor excluding the pre-ending (that felt a bit rushed), and the fact that you have to keep getting new units slowly throughout the campaign - hopefully when they do make the 2 sequels, they won't do this again as people will already have been introduced. Then again they could do the same thing just for protoss and zerg :/.

Apart from that I quite liked the game. Especially since I managed to complete the campaign on normal mode (without cheats) when I usually fail at RTS .

Edit:

Major Ocelot Prince Valerian!

I literally burst out laughing at that.

I think they have to give it to you in bits and pieces, because if you can Get battlecruisers from the beginning, and you abuse them, any mission ceases to be challenging and the story no longer makes sense.

Unless they gave you money restrictions, the campaign felt a little restrictive with the funds.


But maybe they could perfect the system and let you have your cake and eat it too.

 

[martin's a madman]

I hate how Blizzard no longer makes games, but products.

Really? Because, uh, SC2 seems like a pretty good *game* to me...

It's an alright game, there are certainly better recent RTSs.

Interesting game - imagine that Starcraft was never made. All of a sudden, a polished, well presented, ok graphicsed RTS came out with gameplay from 1998. Would you buy it?

BAHAHAHA! oh, ignorance like this always makes me laugh. if you own any of the following, you offically are a massive hypocrite, and need to be de-voice box'ed

Call of duty 4
Call of duty 4 2
halo 2/3
super mario galaxy
any legend of zelda after 2000
gears of war (any)
medal of honor (any)
oblivion


why? because all of these games are just better graphics sellotaped onto games from before 2000. i understand that taking risks is integral to progress in video games, but sometimes you just want something simply deep (if that makes any sense). if you want to patronize an indie game dev because of their new, wacky, innovative ideas, go ahead, i encourage it, i am one such dev. but when a company that is clearly not trying to innovate beyond what will make a previous idea better, complaining about a lack of new ideas is like complaining how the government doesnt try to make good decisions.

I promised to be out of this thread, but I just couldn't resist here:
Guess what?

I don't own any of those games except for Halo2/3 (which I don't play, and haven't for a loooooong ass time) and Oblivion (which I didn't buy, and have voiced my opinion against wherever I can)!

Nice try though - I admire you're ability to assume

So, what sorts of games should we all be playing, sir?

 

[Kanodin0]

More "complex" recent RTSes, yes. Better recent RTSes, I disagree.

I'm going to keep going back to the chess analogy. Chess has gameplay from thousands of years ago. Does that make it bad? If someone else released StarCraft 2 today without SC1 existing, it would still be really good.

"Gameplay from 1998" is not a downside when the game made in 1998 was really good.

Repeat after me: There is not one continuum of RTS design. There is not one continuum of RTS design. There is not one continuum of RTS design. Designers need to use what makes sense in their game.

I like your analogy and agree with it's implication that a formula doesn't always need refinement. To borrow it though, my problem with the whole situation is that no one is out there trying to sell me Chess 2: it's just more Chess. Put another way, why should I buy Starcraft 2 when I already have 1?

 

[SquirrelPants]

More "complex" recent RTSes, yes. Better recent RTSes, I disagree.

I'm going to keep going back to the chess analogy. Chess has gameplay from thousands of years ago. Does that make it bad? If someone else released StarCraft 2 today without SC1 existing, it would still be really good.

"Gameplay from 1998" is not a downside when the game made in 1998 was really good.

Repeat after me: There is not one continuum of RTS design. There is not one continuum of RTS design. There is not one continuum of RTS design. Designers need to use what makes sense in their game.

I like your analogy and agree with it's implication that a formula doesn't always need refinement. To borrow it though, my problem with the whole situation is that no one is out there trying to sell me Chess 2: it's just more Chess. Put another way, why should I buy Starcraft 2 when I already have 1?

Because, unlike Chess, there are a few changes here. Let's put it this way, in keeping with the analogy: People pay good money for newer chess sets that look nicer. Those glass ones, the ones that look like Mario characters, that sort of thing.

I don't think Mister Funk's analogy works, really, because while it is similar gameplay, they're adding more things to it. Essentially, StarCraft 2 is a standalone expansion to the first game, but it looks nicer, has more units, has more upgrades, and just generally has a lot more to do. It's kind of hard to make a chess analogy work that way with anything other than the gameplay itself.

 

[Devil's Due]

StarCraft 1 DID set the bar for RTS's at the time. All races were balanced perfectly, fair game play, and unique unit design. StarCraft 2 carry's that one, but not technology changing. World in Conflict is a okay RTS, but many people have their own tastes. I prefer building bases and watching my grounds expand, while others want a WoC approach and just units, units, units. Both are good, but both are for different tastes.

EDIT: Woo, 500 after two years of being here.

 

[Kanodin0]

Because, unlike Chess, there are a few changes here. Let's put it this way, in keeping with the analogy: People pay good money for newer chess sets that look nicer. Those glass ones, the ones that look like Mario characters, that sort of thing.

I don't think Mister Funk's analogy works, really, because while it is similar gameplay, they're adding more things to it. Essentially, StarCraft 2 is a standalone expansion to the first game, but it looks nicer, has more units, has more upgrades, and just generally has a lot more to do. It's kind of hard to make a chess analogy work that way with anything other than the gameplay itself.

The argument you make is one I've always found myself completely against. To explain, I am against the idea of graphical improvements and minor tweaks being viewed as the standard for advancement. I simply don't see the point of a shiny new chess set when I have my old one that's built to last.

That said, a graphical improvement to an old game like Starcraft is hardly the worst example of this problem, and I certainly hold no grudge against anyone who is happy with it. I just do not see a compelling reason to buy it and dislike the larger trend that spawned it.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

well then, good job at not being a hypocrite.

That's it? I shall put my voice box back in then.

 

[Art3rius]

Three strategy games, Company of Heroes, Civilization IV and Warcraft III:Reign of Chaos still hold higher scores than Starcraft 2, according to Gamerankings.

 

[Vilcus]

I don't think it's really possible for any game to survive on nostalgia.

I loved Halo: Combat Evolved, and when I heard Halo 2 was going to be released my mind was instantly blown. First day I get it, play for 10 minutes and came to the conclusion that it was not even close to the original, in fact I thought it was crap.

That being said, I do not yet have Starcraft 2, I own the original, but I lack a video card powerful enough to run SC2, and because of that I am stuck. I honestly can't wait till I get a job and am able to afford a new computer capable of running it. It will not be nostalgia, but the custom games that draw me (I played the story once for Starcraft, it was fun, but the allure was map editor for me)