Starcraft 1 vs 2

[Arcadia2000]

I doubt the pro-gaming SC scene will rush to Starcraft 2, every RTS game only starts to achieve real balance after a year of patching so it makes no sense for competitive gamers to rush away from a perfectly balanced RTS to one that is only in its infancy just because they are similar. In time, SC2 might take over provided it's up to the standard of SC1, but it will probably take years to happen.

Pretty much this. RTS' are notoriously IMBA when they come out and don't tend to achieve any semblance of balance until about a year or so of patching.

First - yes, this.

Second, try playing SC on 32 mb (Yes, mb) of RAM. It hurts. Just to get through the game I turned on the cheat codes and let the battles pan out overnight. It was quite awhile before I legitimately beat the game. -_-' I know SC2 would look at my old comp, blink, and refuse to admit that it saw anything.

 

[Overlord Moo]

Crazy Koren experts will stick with the classic. A lot people will switch over. There will still be a die-hard base of starcraft players for years. Depending on how the new game feels, it may develop an equally rabid base of largely Koren players who play it as if it's god gift to Earth. I can see people playing both for some time before deciding on one or the other with a lot using the new game and only same parts using only the old or both games.

I've never understood why the Koreans worship the game. I mean, I played it and thought it was awsome, but I don't worship it. People that are good at the game in Korea are treated like gods!

 

[Flying-Emu]

I'll probably play both still, Starcraft has a classic feel I enjoy. Also, if the A.I. in Starcraft 2 isn't as hard as the one in the first, I'll definitely be going back to the old one.

Yes, the AI is so hard.

"Sir, should we march in regimented ranks based on melee or ranged capabilities?"

"NO, YOU FOOL! March in a straight line to your death with abysmal pathing!"

 

[CmdrGoob]

Crazy Koren experts will stick with the classic. A lot people will switch over. There will still be a die-hard base of starcraft players for years. Depending on how the new game feels, it may develop an equally rabid base of largely Koren players who play it as if it's god gift to Earth. I can see people playing both for some time before deciding on one or the other with a lot using the new game and only same parts using only the old or both games.

I've never understood why the Koreans worship the game. I mean, I played it and thought it was awsome, but I don't worship it. People that are good at the game in Korea are treated like gods!

Koreans don't 'worship' it any more than people in other countries worship, say, football or football players. It's a televised popular sport.

 

[BonsaiK]

People still play CS 1.6? Why?

(apart from that their system might struggle to run Source of course)

 

[Overlord Moo]

Crazy Koren experts will stick with the classic. A lot people will switch over. There will still be a die-hard base of starcraft players for years. Depending on how the new game feels, it may develop an equally rabid base of largely Koren players who play it as if it's god gift to Earth. I can see people playing both for some time before deciding on one or the other with a lot using the new game and only same parts using only the old or both games.

I've never understood why the Koreans worship the game. I mean, I played it and thought it was awsome, but I don't worship it. People that are good at the game in Korea are treated like gods!

Koreans don't 'worship' it any more than people in other countries worship, say, football or football players. It's a televised popular sport.

Fine.

 

[asiepshtain]

I wonder how the 3-way split for the series will affect this.

How often do people have to tell that its just a game with two expansions now.
They jsut said they thought about splitting it, but decided to go the traditional route.

Link to blizzard backing this up please, as far as I know terran are the only single player race.

 

[microhive]

I wonder how the 3-way split for the series will affect this.

How often do people have to tell that its just a game with two expansions now.
They jsut said they thought about splitting it, but decided to go the traditional route.

Link to blizzard backing this up please, as far as I know terran are the only single player race.

He's wrong. They've stated that StarCraft II will be a full blown trillogy. Each campaign will feature a complete campaign, editor, battle.net 2.0, advanced AI, scenario, and etc.

They're presumably going with the typical expansion costs.

Battle.net 2.0 will function similar to Steam.

 

[BonsaiK]

People still play CS 1.6? Why?

(apart from that their system might struggle to run Source of course)

tac shields were taken from source, in 1.6 you can run around with a deagle one shoting everyone from the safety of your tank shield.

If it were up to me I would have removed AWP, Auto snipers and deagle from source, not the tac shield.

 

[elitecrewer]

People still play CS 1.6? Why?

(apart from that their system might struggle to run Source of course)

I play 1.6, not Source. It just plays a whole lot better for me. See http://sourceisbad.com/ (< clearly not an advertisement).

 

[Panzer_God]

If Blizzard hadn't had it's foot somewhere uncomfortable for the last decade or so and actually released the bloody game then it would have been a seamless shift from starcraft to the sequel. However, since they took their sweet time in developing the game it gives the impression of the drunken uncle that everyone loves but shows up five hours late to christmas dinner. That said I'm going to switch simply for the graphics upgrade and the new units but I go under protest.

 

[elitecrewer]

SC2 is just a visual upgrade. I doubt it will be affected by gameplay changes like CSS vs 1.6

You would think the fact that it's a sequel (where CS:S is a remake) and the fact that it's 10 years later might make them put some changes in. By all means, it will be similar, but there are some new features (like something about hiding/camoflaging), and the new units etc will mean they'll have to redo all the stats, so it will play a little differently. I would imagine that SC skill will still largely transfer to SC2.

 

[Clemenstation]

I play 1.6, not Source. It just plays a whole lot better for me. See http://sourceisbad.com/ (< clearly not an advertisement).

This site is madness. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but the guy who runs this page is hardcore adamant to the point of zealotry. He is also a poor speller, and probably has some life detachment issues.

 

[Count_de_Monet]

I think the Counter Strike explanation is a perfect starting point for this. I played Counter Strike from 2001 to 2006 and the only reason I stuck with it the extra couple years was my ownership of a laptop which was not in any ways meant for gaming. When I quit 1.6 I was pretty damn good at it, I could shoot to the top of the scores in most servers so it wasn't easy to make the switch. Fundamentally CS:S is the same game but there are little things which make all the difference like bullet patterns, movement (I still get pissed when I touch a wall and freeze for that split second), sounds, and a ton of other things which I didn't even consciously notice, it was all programmed into muscle memory. However, the out of control hacking in 1.6, the number of wide ranging ban lists I had managed to get onto and a recent loss of clan affiliation got me to make the switch.

Now I play CS:S, not competitively or really that well because I've grown out of stat whoring, and it's just as much fun as 1.6 ever was. The moral of the story is that when you play a game at a high level of skill you become unconsciously trained in it's every detail and it isn't easy to give that up and learn a new game. I was heavily pushed to give it up so I jumped that hurdle but there are thousands of people who ***** and moan about CS:S and how it isn't as great as 1.6 when what they really mean is "It isn't EXACTLY 1.6".

Starcraft has a rabid fan base with a large (I assume, I don't know how many people play SC on Battle.net) group of people who are versed in its every intricacy. Many of these people will not want to:

A. Give up these hard won skills to learn a new game otherwise they wouldn't still be playing Starcraft.
B. Sully their skills by playing with the enormous influx of "noobs" that a game release brings (and possibly lose to them).
C. Stick with it until they get up to the same level of skill because it took years and they aren't going to want to spend more years getting used to a new game.

No matter what Blizzard does SC2 is not going to be EXACTLY like SC because it isn't possible to program all of the quirks that a player becomes used to without realizing it. Even though it's fundamentally the same game the differences will be enormous to someone who is intimately familiar with the original.

 

[microhive]

StarCraft wasn't properly balanced until 2001. Since then Blizzard released an avalanche of patches to fix pretty much any bugs even tiny ones. They even patch the game till this day.

StarCraft II will be given the balance at start which StarCraft never had. I hope no idiot will harm their sales.

 

[BonsaiK]

People still play CS 1.6? Why?

(apart from that their system might struggle to run Source of course)

I play 1.6, not Source. It just plays a whole lot better for me. See http://sourceisbad.com/ (< clearly not an advertisement).

CS Source isn't bad just because one zealous nutbag who runs a kooky website says it is. His objections to Source are highly emotive and don't even make any sense, he doesn't really bother argue the point properly, he just kind of says "Source is bad because I said so" in several different ways. The only real statistic he uses is the relative popularity of 1.6 to Source, which says nothing about quality really, because all sorts of rubbish in this world is popular - look at how many people play Halo. I can understand people with old comps sticking to 1.6 for sure, but the differences in gameplay between the two on a reasonably modern computer (mine is 3 years old) are so finnicky and minor that you'd have to be incredibly anal to care, and most of them are frankly improvements if you ask me (like the weapon selection is so much smoother in Source). And his cries that Source is "easy" are just dumb. If it's easy for him, surely it's equally easy for the players on the other team, thus balancing itself out?

I'm sure there will be equally zealous nutbags complaining about how Blizzard "ruined" Starcraft II and how it's "easy" compared to the original no matter how good they make it. There's just no pleasing some people.

 

[elitecrewer]

I play 1.6, not Source. It just plays a whole lot better for me. See http://sourceisbad.com/ (< clearly not an advertisement).

This site is madness. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but the guy who runs this page is hardcore adamant to the point of zealotry. He is also a poor speller, and probably has some life detachment issues.

It's a little bit of a troll, but I agree with the core message. Quite how most of the content explains why 1.6 is better I don't know.. it seems an endless string of visualisations.

StarCraft II will be given the balance at start which StarCraft never had. I hope no idiot will harm their sales.

If anything harmed their sales, it would be the 3 way release. I don't think anyone's a fan of that.

 

[I3uster]

I wonder how the 3-way split for the series will affect this.

How often do people have to tell that its just a game with two expansions now.
They jsut said they thought about splitting it, but decided to go the traditional route.

Link to blizzard backing this up please, as far as I know terran are the only single player race.

Yeah single player is true, but there is no "split"
Also there is a 'toss minicampaign in it.

 

[microhive]

I play 1.6, not Source. It just plays a whole lot better for me. See http://sourceisbad.com/ (< clearly not an advertisement).

This site is madness. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but the guy who runs this page is hardcore adamant to the point of zealotry. He is also a poor speller, and probably has some life detachment issues.

It's a little bit of a troll, but I agree with the core message. Quite how most of the content explains why 1.6 is better I don't know.. it seems an endless string of visualisations.

StarCraft II will be given the balance at start which StarCraft never had. I hope no idiot will harm their sales.

If anything harmed their sales, it would be the 3 way release. I don't think anyone's a fan of that.

They should rather have said one base game and 2 expansions. People tend to misunderstand everything regarding money.

 

[Worr Monger]

I don't play much Multiplayer as it is.... especially RTS games. So I'll have no problem with Starcraft 2...

I just remember finishing Starcraft back in the late 90's and thinking... "Boy I can't wait till #2 comes out soon"

Christ now I'm an old fart and still waiting.