Poll: Does StarCraft II have blue ball effect?

[Sev07]

Blue Balls(in terms of gaming): when something hasn't been updated or re-released for a long period of time. When the game is then updated or re-released a surge of old players come back and then feel that the game is more epic than it really is.

My issue: First off I would like to point out that I adored StarCraft, and that I have been pursuing SC II since it's announcement. I have also played the beta and will probably be buying the battle chest. (I thought that the division of single player campaign was stupid) That being said I truly feel that this game has tremendous blue ball effect. Playing the beta did not feel like a new game, it felt like a rehashed version of StarCraft(which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but I thought that with a new StarCraft would come a new style of RTS.

I think that SC II has done a good job at pulling a veil over everyone's eyes, with fancy graphics, and a better physic's, with new skins it seems that everyone wants this game. But what has Blizzard really done to this game that has improved(in terms of innovation) on the previous SC? New Battle net? They were going to have to update it regardless if they wanted better online capabilities. New units? What sequel game has not come out with at least one new unit. New playing style? With a revision of units the new game is better rounded making people only readjust old strategies.

With the amount of fans that SC has created they were guaranteed a fan base, but with a fancy overcoat of high rendered models the fan base has grown exponentially, for what? No new innovation's for game play, nothing that the average gamer couldn't see coming, and nowhere to improve. With a big company like blizzard you would think that they could take what was and change it to something great. Again I find that the game is just the same but better looking.

I guess that's all anyone wanted... But back to the issue, if there is nothing really new about this game then why is there such a big number of players? Personally I find that this all comes down to blue balls. With such a big hiatus, when SC II came out everyone who liked it in the past picked it up, everyone who had an inclining to try it got it, and even people who dislike the game style took a look at it.

So, I ask the fine community of the escapist to answer my question, agree or disagree but show your work.

TL;DR: With such a long hiatus from the gaming community, do you feel SC II has any meat to it, or is it popular because of the long wait?

 

[PrimoThePro]

I see what you are implying, and definitely understand what you are saying, but so called "blue-ball effect" has nothing to do with me buying this game. I enjoy games for story, and re-playability. I am excited to see the continuation of a fantastic storyline, but most of all, the ability to play this game for hours without it making me bored. I still play Starcraft to this day, and after playing the beta, I am positive that I will get a game made for multiple plays, instead of just one play-through.

 

[Sev07]

I see what you are implying, and definitely understand what you are saying, but so called "blue-ball effect" has nothing to do with me buying this game. I enjoy games for story, and re-playability. I am excited to see the continuation of a fantastic storyline, but most of all, the ability to play this game for hours without it making me bored. I still play Starcraft to this day, and after playing the beta, I am positive that I will get a game made for multiple plays, instead of just one play-through.

Do you really think that this game will have lasting value? Once you finish the story line are you really going to keep playing this game?

 

[PrimoThePro]

Do you really think that this game will have lasting value? Once you finish the story line are you really going to keep playing this game?

Well... yes. Considering that after the storyline of Starcraft I still play the game, I imagine the same will be for this game. But I do feel some of the fun may be sucked out if the story is really good. Nah mean?

 

[ENKC]

As far as differentiating the game from the original, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. StarCraft II has struck the perfect balance and improved on what was already the gold standard RTS.

 

[robinhood36]

Snip.

Do you really think that this game will have lasting value? Once you finish the story line are you really going to keep playing this game?

Yes, because even though you play the game once, there are ways to improve. You can also earn achievements which make the game exciting as well. I first beat the campaign on normal and im halfway through hard. I'm planning on playing brutal but I'm too busy steamrolling my co workers at Best Buy to get back into the campaign right now. I don't think there is an infinite replayability like world of warcraft but to get more than 1 or 2 maybe even 3 makes me feel that this game was well worth the collectors edition that I shelled out for.

Do i feel it could have been better? Sure. Did it have to be better to be a sweet ass game? Not really because it still moved the plot.

 

[Enigmers]

There is much more to Starcraft II than fancy graphics. The matchmaking system is such that you're paired up against people roughly your skill level - this means that multiplayer in StarCraft II is open to everyone, and not just the hardest and ballsiest of people willing to play and lose over and over again before seeing any improvement. There are plenty of things in the game that are easier now - multiple building selection, rallying workers to mineral fields, that sort of thing - making the barrier to entry much lower. Just because you don't see anything appealing in Starcraft II versus Starcraft I doesn't mean it's not there, and you can't accuse everyone who owns it of having blue balls and only buying it because of how long it took to come out.

By the way, they didn't "split up" the game into three parts. Let's analyze this:

StarCraft: 30 mission campaign, three races with which to play multiplayer
StarCraft II: 29 mission campaign, three races with which to play (a vastly improved) multiplayer.

So are you trying to imply that one less mission suddenly means Starcraft II is a third of a game?

 

[miscelaneous]

Still haven't played it...

 

[mad825]

meh, SC fan but not going to play one campaign then have to wait for 2 years or more to get the rest.

my computer shall remain clear of SC2 until the last "expansion" comes out

 

[Sev07]

By the way, they didn't "split up" the game into three parts. Let's analyze this:

StarCraft: 30 mission campaign, three races with which to play multiplayer
StarCraft II: 29 mission campaign, three races with which to play (a vastly improved) multiplayer.

So are you trying to imply that one less mission suddenly means Starcraft II is a third of a game?

Well actually, the game (wings of liberty) and two expansions for the other two campaigns. So yes, I feel that wings of liberty is a third of the game.

 

[Enigmers]

By the way, they didn't "split up" the game into three parts. Let's analyze this:

StarCraft: 30 mission campaign, three races with which to play multiplayer
StarCraft II: 29 mission campaign, three races with which to play (a vastly improved) multiplayer.

So are you trying to imply that one less mission suddenly means Starcraft II is a third of a game?

Well actually, the game (wings of liberty) and two expansions for the other two campaigns. So yes, I feel that wings of liberty is a third of the game.

It's a trilogy. It's like you're saying that Star Wars is a rip off because there are more Star Wars movies. People aren't bitching about Mass Effect or God of War, why is Starcraft II any different?

 

[Avaholic03]

Does it really matter? Whatever reason people have for enjoying a game, just let them enjoy it. Why try and rain on their parade by calling it "blue balls"?

Also, the game stands up well on its own. I never played much of SC1, so I wouldn't say I was affected by it. But I've played a ton of SC2, and even by itself it's still a great game with lots of entertainment value compared to many other $60 games.

 

[Mumonk]

It's a trilogy. It's like you're saying that Star Wars is a rip off because there are more Star Wars movies. People aren't bitching about Mass Effect or God of War, why is Starcraft II any different?

^this, and why not keep it close to the same? SC was the most perfectly balanced game ever made, so just tweek it up a little. If it ain't broke, don't fix it =P

 

[John Funk]

Given that half of the people I know who are playing the pants off of SC2 and loving it never even touched the first game, I'd have to say that the answer is a fairly emphatic "no."

Also, again:

StarCraft I was the Hobbit - a shorter, self contained story.

StarCraft II: WoL is Fellowship of the Ring - it's still a complete story, but it's the first part of a larger whole. You are not getting a third of a cookie, you are getting the first cookie of a three-cookie set.

 

[Sev07]

It's a trilogy. It's like you're saying that Star Wars is a rip off because there are more Star Wars movies. People aren't bitching about Mass Effect or God of War, why is Starcraft II any different?

First I am not going to get into the star wars movie reference, it's a movie trilogy and not a game, and Mass Effect 2 had big changes made to it. The game-play in ME2 compared to ME1 is different with new mechanics. And what I was trying to say with the whole split in three is that I really wanted the story in it's entirety, it didn't bother me that they divided it up with 2 expansions but that I will have to wait for them.

 

[Gralian]

I think the Blue Balls effect can be overlooked when something has outstanding production values; it's not just nostalgia, it's nostalgia honed to perfection. I feel the new units and whatever make it feel fresh while, as people keep touting, the reworked battle.net system makes multiplayer the real gem of the game. Achievements and whatnot keep gamers coming back for more (say what you want, but it does add replay value whether you consciously go for them or not). Don't fix what ain't broken has been Blizzard's mantra for a while now and they're filthy rich because of it. And not just Blizzard. Just look at the God of War, Gears of War and Halo franchises. There's a reason the developers of those games are laughing all the way to the bank and why WoW clones that try to "reinvent the genre" end up in a ball of flame.

 

[Kagim]

The campaign for me was about a thousand times more enjoyable.

Since i couldn't give two shit about competitive play the game is vastly superior to Starcraft one to me. The campaign is interesting, tons of meaty story bits, customization options available in the armory and laboratory system that changes up gameplay(Self run vespane factories, hell yeah!)

Right now i am playing on hard difficulty trying to get all achievements while checking out the Custom maps people are putting.

The game is a massive step up in gameplay for me and i look forward to the next two games. It had nothing to do with the 12 years in between. It had everything to do with them putting together a great single player experience.

 

[Sev07]

Given that half of the people I know who are playing the pants off of SC2 and loving it never even touched the first game, I'd have to say that the answer is a fairly emphatic "no."

Also, again:

StarCraft I was the Hobbit - a shorter, self contained story.

StarCraft II: WoL is Fellowship of the Ring - it's still a complete story, but it's the first part of a larger whole. You are not getting a third of a cookie, you are getting the first cookie of a three-cookie set.

I do agree about the whole hobbit v fellowship. But again as I said, I was disappointed that I have to wait for the whole story.

 

[sivlin]

I see what you are implying, and definitely understand what you are saying, but so called "blue-ball effect" has nothing to do with me buying this game. I enjoy games for story, and re-playability. I am excited to see the continuation of a fantastic storyline, but most of all, the ability to play this game for hours without it making me bored. I still play Starcraft to this day, and after playing the beta, I am positive that I will get a game made for multiple plays, instead of just one play-through.

Do you really think that this game will have lasting value? Once you finish the story line are you really going to keep playing this game?

Just for some validation on the long lasting value - I played through the SC2 story line on normal difficulty... then I played through it again on normal... then I played through most of the missions on hard... and now I'm playing the campaign through on Brutal. SC2 has an immaculate story not to mention I'm having a blast acquiring all of the achievements. The multiplayer environment is also pretty awesome but I haven't played too much of the melee version of multiplayer - mostly custom games.

 

[Pearwood]

I wanted to see the storyline continued and wanted polished gameplay, I wasn't disappointed. If I wanted change I'd wait for Warcraft 4 (assuming that series hasn't ended with WoW), that's the one they experiment with.