SC2 lives off nostalgia?

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Starcraft! Living off nostalgia!? Have you even played it?

Each stage of the campaign teaches you more about the finer details of the game preparing you for the multiplayer, the achievements are superbly balanced and give the levels a nice interesting extra layer, the storyline is pretty cool with likable characters (well, Tychus and Tosh were awesome anyway)and the challenges are varied and difficult - but doable - and the multiplayer...well I don't like the multiplayer much but only cause I get my ass handed to me.

You think it didn't innovate? Pshaw! It's the most complete, well rounded, balanced and challenging RTS I've played to date. Yes, it built on the foundation of the game that went before but what sequal doesn't? There are more changes in Starcraft 2 than the graphics, I suggest you play a game and form an opinion which isn't based on your perception of a company which is not only successful but successful every single time it realeses a game.

Head, remove it from your ass please.

I don't know what to say, but I'll try.

1. I don't think you know what 'innovate' means.

2. It IS NOT the most challenging RTS. This is just blatantly false.

3. From what I hear the storyline is fairly generic, but that could just be the people I've talked to.

4. Pretty much all campaigns have tutorials integrated into them.

5. It may be fairly well-rounded, but it didn't exactly shoot for the stars either.

Starcraft 2 is more a product rather than a game, and as a product it went for the lowest common denomenator, a game that everyone can play. In so doing, it is far too simple for my tastes, not nearly detailed enough, and not interesting enough.

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.

You can make the pieces looks shiny and well detailed, even make the board in real life scale and with robots, and I guess it will be awesome.


But you could also do this to the board

And take a risk.

And there we have a classic example of why "innovative" does not actually equal "better"

That actually looks like a lot of fun.

 

[SpecklePattern]

Well I just can't agree. If you ask me

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.

is also my opinion. You can always do a

[insert sequel game title] lives off nostalgia

kind of thing.

I actually was really critical for SC2 and I just don't know how to say anything bad about it. The only bad thing perhaps is, the complex menu of SC2, but I get used to that in time. The story was really nice and the gameplay is solid.

 

[Cody211282]

SC2 is a good game, but it does rely heavily on nostalgia so that you will buy into the 1 game in 3 parts thing.

*Sigh* This again?

Count how many missions are in SC2. Go and count them.

There are 29 missions in Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. There are 30 in Starcraft.

You are quite literally one mission less in WoL, and when you consider the vast improvements made to the Map Editor (TPS? FPS? Sidescroller? Warcraft 3 Heroes? We can do it all and more), the whole "1 game in 3 parts" thing starts to fall apart.

Yes and I wouldn't have had a problem with that if they had finished the terran part of the damn game, but they didn't, they left it wide open for more terran missions we will never get to play because that part of the story is over, we get the zerg and protoss parts next, not terran part 2. ***** all you want about people not liking it but if you think they don't have a reason to be angery your really wrong.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

i hate blizzard because they basically ripped the idea of warhammer 40k entirely off. I hate blizzard because they took one game, and made it three (because they knew you'd fuckin buy it). I hate blizzard because they took dark and gritty fantasy (warcraft) and made it light, fluffy, colorful, and laughable standard fantasy crock. I hate blizzard because they're doing the same thing to diablo.

 

[Amnestic]

Yes and I wouldn't have had a problem with that if they had finished the terran part of the damn game, but they didn't, they left it wide open for more terran missions we will never get to play because that part of the story is over, we get the zerg and protoss parts next, not terran part 2.

Well gee, maybe they could, I dunno, continue the Terran story while still playing as the Zerg and Protoss? You know, like they did in the original Starcraft? Or in Warcraft 3 (with their respective races, obviously)?

 

[John Funk]

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

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

 

[Cody211282]

Yes and I wouldn't have had a problem with that if they had finished the terran part of the damn game, but they didn't, they left it wide open for more terran missions we will never get to play because that part of the story is over, we get the zerg and protoss parts next, not terran part 2.

Well gee, maybe they could, I dunno, continue the Terran story while still playing as the Zerg and Protoss? You know, like they did in the original Starcraft? Or in Warcraft 3 (with their respective races, obviously)?

So they are going to just put what should be the most epic terran battles and the most civil war as background story that you hear in news reports, because that just feels like a rip off. I would have been happy as all hell with the game if they had managed to finish at least something in the first part, I would have absolutely nothing to ***** about other then I don't want to wait for the rest of it, but with how it is it's like going to watch Lord of the rings but it ends when Frodo and the gang enters Moria, then your told you will see the next part of the series from Mordors side then Gondors. Don't get me wrong the game is great, but how they are handing the ending the stories is crap.

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

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

Ok I for once am going to agree with you, as much as I don't agree with how they are realsing it, the damn thing is a great game, a product would be like just giving you the mad editor and 3 marines.

Also me agreeing with you about this game might mean the 4 horsemen are coming soon, humm.

 

[Theron Julius]

SC2 is a good game, but it does rely heavily on nostalgia so that you will buy into the 1 game in 3 parts thing.

*Sigh* This again?

Count how many missions are in SC2. Go and count them.

There are 29 missions in Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. There are 30 in Starcraft.

You are quite literally one mission less in WoL, and when you consider the vast improvements made to the Map Editor (TPS? FPS? Sidescroller? Warcraft 3 Heroes? We can do it all and more), the whole "1 game in 3 parts" thing starts to fall apart.

Ah, a good argument! Wings of Liberty isn't a third of a cookie. It's the first of three whole cookies. People need to get that.

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

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

Indeed. I think Alligator thinking of Activision not Blizzard. They may be linked but they are not the same.

 

[hudsonzero]

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

This this this this this and this

I'm with these two.

me fourth

 

[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?

 

[John Funk]

Starcraft 2 is more a product rather than a game, and as a product it went for the lowest common denomenator, a game that everyone can play. In so doing, it is far too simple for my tastes, not nearly detailed enough, and not interesting enough.

[snip]

That actually looks like a lot of fun.

Uh, accessibility is not a bad thing. Yes, everyone can play it on some level, but if you're going to say that there is no depth and detail there, you are incredibly wrong.

Going back to my analogy, I was playing chess when I was 4. Does that mean Gary Kasparov was wasting his life on a game without any complexity?

And again, nobody's saying that it can't be fun. I love other RTSes. But innovation does not always equal better, just as refinement does not equal worse.

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?

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.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

(well, Tychus and Tosh were awesome anyway)

You didn't like Matt or Nova?

And Major Ocelot Prince Valerian! He was cool too. Not to mention Duran? Dr. Narud :3

Plus we got to see a bunch of upcoming Protoss characters, and Artanis' funky new hat. ;D

They're okay I guess but Tychus > all \o/

I think you'll find that Raynor > Tychus, and the Jukebox agrees with me.

Tychus had that fucking awesome voice though. Sounds like he's swallowed gravel. Unfortunately, I had the majority of the cutscenes ruined for me after reading this thread on Giant Bomb where someone pointed out that The marine's armour resembles a cats face.

Spoiler: The result?

 

[pneuma08]

I had my doubts getting into SC2 just because I'm not heavily into RTSes. I played SC1 and Dawn of War 1 mostly because I had friends getting into them, and while DoW had some interesting mechanics but I've never really been good enough to multi much and campaign mode gets so. boring. because it's just the same thing over and over. So far SC2 manages to avoid this because of the tech and mech labs as well as providing interesting secondary objectives, while introducing a new unit or mixing up what is available.

My only regret with the game so far is that there's only the Terran campaign available, which is not really a regret per se. It's just that the campaign does a really good job of introducing units and buildings and familiarizing yourself with the upgrades, strengths, and weaknesses for each that I want to go through that with the Zerg and Protoss just to have a more well-rounded understanding.

Starcraft 2 is more a product rather than a game, and as a product it went for the lowest common denomenator, a game that everyone can play. In so doing, it is far too simple for my tastes, not nearly detailed enough, and not interesting enough.

You, sir, need to watch some pro matches with commentary. They will blow your mind with the amount of depth of options they have available. It's actually quite exciting and I can see how the original game turned into the first e-sport.

 

[Neevar]

Well in my opinion every sequel of this magnitude will "live off nostalgia". But that doesn't mean SC2 is a bad game or worst than the original starcraft. Starcraft 2 is better than SC, it's simple as that. It's improved on any aspects that i can think of. It's not revolutionary, and it's not as revolitionary as the original SC was when it came out, but games does not always need to be revolutionary. They just needs to be well made and fun to play. SC2 Delivers that!
SC2 also keeps the tradition of fun and well balanced PvP Matches. It feels like a true MOBA.
Another thing, i don't really care about how other RTS games have evolved, they sure did not evolved that much. Some of them made things a bit different, but they are still RTS at the core, you still need resources to built stuff, farms or pilons, you have various troops and so on and so forth. The genre has not evolved that much, and SC2 made me understand that putting unnecessary new elements in a game does not makes a game good. Maybe the classic formula is better, and not jumping to another formula, but improving the classic one is a better ideea.

And if i would've seen a sequel to SC that "looked" like Company of Heroes for example, i would be pissed. I don't even enjoyed RTS's like CoH or any other RTS that experimented with the genre but for me, failed to impress. SC2 Needs to be like SC in terms of basic mechanics, if you know what i mean. It needs to be classy, but fresh. And again, blizzard delivered!

Starcraft 2's campaign is just wonderful, those point&click sections are really refreshing and every bit of the campaign have reminded me of how much fun a game used to be in the past. Now there's so much crap into games in order to make them more "real" or in order to try and revolutionize the genre that the games feel unpolished experiments. We got used to these games that come and go, but we feel unsatisfied. You end up playing a game to the end, if you do, just because, well because you started playing it so, let's add another "finished game" on the "finished games shelf".
I don't know if it's only me, but while i played SC2's campaign, i got this "epiphany" that games today are starting to feel less like games. They try to achieve something they shouldn't. They shouldn't rush the evolution, they should be good, solid and fun games. They should feel like a good old board-game, or a book. Not like some competitor in "the battle of the revolutionary pixel"
SC2 Made me enjoy the RTS genre again.
Anyway, sorry for my bad english, and look past my flawed grammar.
p.s. no, i'm not a starcraft or blizzard fanboy, i haven't played SC for years, maybe 10 years, and i have not played competitive multiplayer either.

 

[Uncreation]

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

I never played Starcraft 2, and don't intend to, but i liked Starcraft. And Starcraft is one of the best RTS games ever, if not outright the best.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Starcraft 2 is more a product rather than a game, and as a product it went for the lowest common denomenator, a game that everyone can play. In so doing, it is far too simple for my tastes, not nearly detailed enough, and not interesting enough.

[snip]

That actually looks like a lot of fun.

Uh, accessibility is not a bad thing. Yes, everyone can play it on some level, but if you're going to say that there is no depth and detail there, you are incredibly wrong.

Going back to my analogy, I was playing chess when I was 4. Does that mean Gary Kasparov was wasting his life on a game without any complexity?

And again, nobody's saying that it can't be fun. I love other RTSes. But innovation does not always equal better, just as refinement does not equal worse.

I hate straw men.

I'm not saying that there's no depth or detail. I'm saying there's not nearly enough to attract my attention. Accessability can lead to bad things like over simplification (SupCom 2 anyone?), though at face value, no it's not a bad thing. Innovation does always mean better. It's a form of natural selection. It finds out what game mechanics work and which ones don't. Without games going outside the box and discovering new things, all games would be the same (except setting and storyline). Innovation doesn't always mean better for an individual game, but it DOES always mean better for the genre as a whole. Refinement is great. I just wish that there was a little more to it.

 

[Tzekelkan]

I don't get the argument, OP. It's saying that Starcraft II is bad because it didn't innovate and that it should have copied Company of Heroes/World in Conflict more. It's contradictory.

Also, the original Starcraft, whether it's the best RTS evar(!!!) or not, still has a very large fanbase to this day. Why would Blizzard make Starcraft II, the sequel to Starcraft I, cater to fans of another game? It'd be like shooting a gun directly downwards: sure, you could miss but it's much more likely you'd be shooting yourself in both feet.

 

[Amnestic]

Innovation does always mean better.

Really? The detractors of Command and Conquer 4 would disagree with you.

 

[Tjebbe]

Of course SC2 relies heavily on nostalgia. It is, after all, a game from 1992:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_control_2

And yes, it is still awesome (nostalgia incluis)

I'm a bit unsure of the reasons people keep spelling 'control' as 'craft' though.