But it's been VERY well established in this thread that SC2 is much, much more than a visual upgrade.Miumaru said:
SC2 lives off nostalgia?
- Thread starter PurpleSky
- Start date
Isn't that up to other developers? If people are enjoying the current games and the way they're going, who are you to say that we should just stop and just blindly go towards "innovation"?PurpleSky said:Even if changing the working formula is bad, I still want Blizzard to take a chance, I want them to make a completely new MMO/rts game,instead of adding to existing franchises, but they never do these things.John Funk said:And there we have a classic example of why "innovative" does not actually equal "better"PurpleSky said: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.John Funk said:
But you could also do this to the board
And take a risk.
Maybe when people stop playing....so never....
I'll be frank, I always find myself facepalming whenever the word "innovate" is thrown around (especially these days). That said I do think that there is a *tiny* bit of nostalgia factor in SC2. but that factor is equal in size and significance to Megaman 9 or the upcoming Tron 2. In other words, significant, but not to the point that its the one thing keeping the game afloat.
As for blizzard taking a chance, here's an idea: collaborate with FFG to make a digital version of the WoW and Starcraft Board games (I hate WoW, but the boardgame is awesome).
EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention how alot of SC fans got tossed around with Ghost
As for blizzard taking a chance, here's an idea: collaborate with FFG to make a digital version of the WoW and Starcraft Board games (I hate WoW, but the boardgame is awesome).
EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention how alot of SC fans got tossed around with Ghost
Ok, well that is something different. I too would like to see them expand beyond the Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo franchises, but that's different then hating on Starcraft for being Starcraft. But I do have to ask, what exactly are these great innovations that Blizzard should be doing to Starcraft and to what extent would it still be Starcraft when the innovations are done?PurpleSky said:Even if changing the working formula is bad, I still want Blizzard to take a chance, I want them to make a completely new MMO/rts game,instead of adding to existing franchises, but they never do these things.John Funk said:And there we have a classic example of why "innovative" does not actually equal "better"PurpleSky said: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.John Funk said:
But you could also do this to the board
And take a risk.
Maybe when people stop playing....so never....
While it's arguable whether SCBW or SCII is better, I disagree that it's simply a graphical update. The number of new units and abilities makes the gameplay feel significantly different while it still feels like Starcraft.
I've played SC1, and don't mind if I end up playing SC2, but I definitely won't pay for my own copy.
I feel SC1 perfected the genre enough, there's not really anything that SC2 could do to make it better, all they could do is make is look nice and have some more units to make it clusterfucky.
I feel SC1 perfected the genre enough, there's not really anything that SC2 could do to make it better, all they could do is make is look nice and have some more units to make it clusterfucky.
Win post is win.John Funk said:
I played Starcraft for all of a day about a year ago, and only ventured online for a moment before quitting due to the only people on the servers being pros. Now I pick up SCII and I love it.
SCII has it's own niche, the twitchy rtser with focus on speed more than exact placement. In short, it's different, although it's subtle from the outside.
SCII has it's own niche, the twitchy rtser with focus on speed more than exact placement. In short, it's different, although it's subtle from the outside.
game is more original, and more importantly, balanced, fast paced, and will continue to evolve.
Bigger fan of the original starcraft. But starcraft 2 is high quality shit, as ALL blizzard products are.
And dont act like new games have more "complex" gameplay.
That's like saying Modern warfare 2 is deeper than quake 3.
Just cause you have more features doesn't mean your more complex.
Just means you bulky and probably unbalanced.
Bigger fan of the original starcraft. But starcraft 2 is high quality shit, as ALL blizzard products are.
And dont act like new games have more "complex" gameplay.
That's like saying Modern warfare 2 is deeper than quake 3.
Just cause you have more features doesn't mean your more complex.
Just means you bulky and probably unbalanced.
"Man Tosh is the coolest character, he's such a punk, his missions are so awesome. Easily the most badass on the Hyperion crew, if they let me control him in a mission shit will be sooooo awesome... whats this, a branching mission siding with one or the other? Haha, as if I'd pick anyone over To-Amnestic said:You didn't like Matt or Nova?
I GET TO WORK WITH NOVA?? OHMYGODTHISISTHEBESTTHINGEVER! FUCK YOU TOSH, YOU'RE GOING DOWN!
I have to agree. Although I love Age of Empires, there seems to be something more to Starcraft that isn't present in other games.Proteus214 said:
I think the closest you have in comparison to it would be Worldcraft 3 (which I always wondered why no one played that competitively).
DesertHawk pretty much nailed it back on page 1. The problem isn't that SC2 is a bad game in anyway, because it isn't and that much is obvious to anyone who's played it.
My own contention with SC2 is that it sets a bad predecent for the rest of the game industry. What SC2 is, at its' core, is basically one extremly polished and fine-tuned version of a game that was released 12 years ago (yes, there are new units etc. but that's beside the point). Gameplay wise it doesn't bring anything new to the table, instead it takes an old concept and polishes it until you can see your own reflection in its' shine.
So had StarCraft II not been developed by Blizzard and had had any other name (like say, InterGalactic War), it would have been stomped into the ground at worst or have been called a mediocre game that fails to bring anything to the table at best. As it stands however, SC2 manages to live enough off its' name to make all of us forget that what we are playing today is almost exactly the same thing as 12 years ago but with additional gloss.
This isn't a bad thing inherently, but it sets a bad predecent in that we'll likely be seeing lots of mediocre games trying to mimic SC2's success by doing the same thing. Which they won't succeed with as the main reasons for SC2's success is the fact that it is a sequel (to the most competitive RTS of all times) that only strives to make its' predecessor even more fine tuned. Under any other name or developer and not set in the SC-universe, SC2 would have bombed most likely. This is not a critique against SC2 or Blizzard, just some food for thought.
My own contention with SC2 is that it sets a bad predecent for the rest of the game industry. What SC2 is, at its' core, is basically one extremly polished and fine-tuned version of a game that was released 12 years ago (yes, there are new units etc. but that's beside the point). Gameplay wise it doesn't bring anything new to the table, instead it takes an old concept and polishes it until you can see your own reflection in its' shine.
So had StarCraft II not been developed by Blizzard and had had any other name (like say, InterGalactic War), it would have been stomped into the ground at worst or have been called a mediocre game that fails to bring anything to the table at best. As it stands however, SC2 manages to live enough off its' name to make all of us forget that what we are playing today is almost exactly the same thing as 12 years ago but with additional gloss.
This isn't a bad thing inherently, but it sets a bad predecent in that we'll likely be seeing lots of mediocre games trying to mimic SC2's success by doing the same thing. Which they won't succeed with as the main reasons for SC2's success is the fact that it is a sequel (to the most competitive RTS of all times) that only strives to make its' predecessor even more fine tuned. Under any other name or developer and not set in the SC-universe, SC2 would have bombed most likely. This is not a critique against SC2 or Blizzard, just some food for thought.
To be the thing that makes StarCraft so good is the variety of the races with no two using the same mechanics yet still being balanced and the strength of modding.
Admittedly custom maps are screwed at the moment with the popularity system being a broken pile of turd but other than that it's ok.
Admittedly custom maps are screwed at the moment with the popularity system being a broken pile of turd but other than that it's ok.
Falling said:Ok, well that is something different. I too would like to see them expand beyond the Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo franchises, but that's different then hating on Starcraft for being Starcraft. But I do have to ask, what exactly are these great innovations that Blizzard should be doing to Starcraft and to what extent would it still be Starcraft when the innovations are done?PurpleSky said:Even if changing the working formula is bad, I still want Blizzard to take a chance, I want them to make a completely new MMO/rts game,instead of adding to existing franchises, but they never do these things.John Funk said:And there we have a classic example of why "innovative" does not actually equal "better"PurpleSky said: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.John Funk said:
But you could also do this to the board
And take a risk.
Maybe when people stop playing....so never....
While it's arguable whether SCBW or SCII is better, I disagree that it's simply a graphical update. The number of new units and abilities makes the gameplay feel significantly different while it still feels like Starcraft.
Off the top of my head, Space Combat and time travel.
I wouldn't say nostalgia is the only reason keeping SC2 afloat. I've convinced my friends to buy it after they tried the beta, and its the only game all of my friends are willing to get online for at the same time. Usually, one wants to play CoD, the other TF2, but SC2 works for us. Its just really fun.
When you say games like Opposing Front (CoH) is good, my head almost exploded. I used to play it quite a bit, but when the expansion came out the game became HORRIBLY unbalanced.
With that out of the way, I can say I truly do enjoy Starcraft. I understand nostalgia, I have felt it before. Yes I played and loved Starcraft I, but it isn't the nostalgia that causes me to like Starcraft 2.
I have played a few other RTS campaigns and I usually fall asleep or just stop because I am falling asleep with boredom. Hell I didn't even like the original Starcraft campaign, but I really enjoyed Starcraft 2's campaign. The online is fun, sure there are dicks who use some pretty cheap strategies, but what RTS doesn't have those people?
Overall, I wouldn't say hype is what will keep Starcraft alive. It is people like me who like what Blizzard does (except for WoW, I much dislike WoW.) Games like MW2 was kept alive by hype, seriously I bought that game and I liked it for 2 weeks, until the nostalgia wave fell and then I saw how awful it was.
The main reason is how when it came out, the Panzer Elite were horrible and the British extremely powerful. They basically switched it, and gave the British a kick in the face.
For example, I was versing a guy who had basic volksgrenadiers, the worst of the worst with only a MP40. I had 2 squads, 1 with the guy who gives the offensive upgrade, + a bren MG and guess what? That one squad out in the open slaughtered my infantry. 1 infantry squad of mine costs twice as much as the 1 weak squad vs. 1 powerful + one moderate it is pretty obvious who should win. It doesn't work like that. Also, the British have nothing against armor, so the moment they start rolling out Panzer 4s and Panthers, you better hope your American ally has got it covered.
Off the topic of imbalance, the units AI acts horribly when you want units to move/attack a specific target. Say there are a bunch of nasty americans with recoilless rifles infront of you, and you want your tank to back up. It isn't going to back up, it is going to slowly do a 180, exposing your rear armor to them (the worst possible maneuver) and then drives away.
You want your wehrmacht infantry squad to go fire your panzerfaust or rocket at the back of a tank. You have perfect positioning on the tank, at the rear. Instead of shooting it in the back, they have a wonderful tendency of running RIGHT infront of the tank to shoot the rocket at it, only to be mowed down by the tanks MG.
For example, I was versing a guy who had basic volksgrenadiers, the worst of the worst with only a MP40. I had 2 squads, 1 with the guy who gives the offensive upgrade, + a bren MG and guess what? That one squad out in the open slaughtered my infantry. 1 infantry squad of mine costs twice as much as the 1 weak squad vs. 1 powerful + one moderate it is pretty obvious who should win. It doesn't work like that. Also, the British have nothing against armor, so the moment they start rolling out Panzer 4s and Panthers, you better hope your American ally has got it covered.
Off the topic of imbalance, the units AI acts horribly when you want units to move/attack a specific target. Say there are a bunch of nasty americans with recoilless rifles infront of you, and you want your tank to back up. It isn't going to back up, it is going to slowly do a 180, exposing your rear armor to them (the worst possible maneuver) and then drives away.
You want your wehrmacht infantry squad to go fire your panzerfaust or rocket at the back of a tank. You have perfect positioning on the tank, at the rear. Instead of shooting it in the back, they have a wonderful tendency of running RIGHT infront of the tank to shoot the rocket at it, only to be mowed down by the tanks MG.
With that out of the way, I can say I truly do enjoy Starcraft. I understand nostalgia, I have felt it before. Yes I played and loved Starcraft I, but it isn't the nostalgia that causes me to like Starcraft 2.
I have played a few other RTS campaigns and I usually fall asleep or just stop because I am falling asleep with boredom. Hell I didn't even like the original Starcraft campaign, but I really enjoyed Starcraft 2's campaign. The online is fun, sure there are dicks who use some pretty cheap strategies, but what RTS doesn't have those people?
Overall, I wouldn't say hype is what will keep Starcraft alive. It is people like me who like what Blizzard does (except for WoW, I much dislike WoW.) Games like MW2 was kept alive by hype, seriously I bought that game and I liked it for 2 weeks, until the nostalgia wave fell and then I saw how awful it was.
No matter how much "complexity" you add to a game, eventually, the player's comprehension will reach a threshold at which they say "it's not worth it" and start using simpler, more convenient strategies. So no, "tactical depth" isn't really depth for anyone that isn't a secretary, an accountant, a secretary FOR an accountant, or a hyper-advanced AI.
Starcraft well straddles that threshold in a way that encourages players to deal in more complex systems of micromanagement while still giving the newer players a foothold of simplicity.
Ever wonder why turn-based strategy games tend to be more complex and rife with features than real-time strategy? Features like:
That's why Starcraft is good. It's not war; it's a game.
Starcraft well straddles that threshold in a way that encourages players to deal in more complex systems of micromanagement while still giving the newer players a foothold of simplicity.
Ever wonder why turn-based strategy games tend to be more complex and rife with features than real-time strategy? Features like:
It's because we're gamers, not accountants. Starcraft's gameplay relies on being streamlined. I don't think there's a general quotient that can relate this to the game's subjective quality, but it's definitely one of the most streamlined strategy games on the market. It's not particularly simple; 3 races, all radically different and involving radically different strategies. But you rarely find an occasion where realism or superfluous features impede gameplay.PurpleSky said:
That's why Starcraft is good. It's not war; it's a game.