WoT
You can't decry a game for having systems in place that clearly define a genre. Saying that RTS games are obsolete because they boil down to "build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc" is like saying FPS games are one dimensional because they boil down to "Shoot guy in head, get bigger gun, shoot next guy in head". All that aside though, I did find it amusing that you refer to Starcraft as a "looking like a Classic RTS" when every RTS game since C&C and Warcraft:Orcs and Humans has used those two as some form of template because those two games defined what an RTS was. Starcraft doesn't just look like a classic, it actually is a classic, even though it did come out a year after Age of Empires.
Starcraft doesn't need to "make RTS's good". One of the big draws to Starcraft is that we haven't had a chance to play new Starcraft content in almost a decade, that rather than hammer out shitty sequel after shitty sequel until the consumer's wallet is as dry and barren as Carol Channing (cookie to whoever gets the reference), Blizzard has taken the time to properly plan and design a new game that will (hopefully) contain the formula of being partly what we remember and love (For the swarm!), partly what we had hoped for (a Zerg unit that can move while burrowed), and partly cool stuff we wouldn't have even thought of (a walking alien tank that counts as both a land and air unit which fires sweeping laser blasts).
The real shocker for me is that I'm not sure how you can claim that Starcraft 2 won't bring anything new to the genre in the same breathe that you call Fallout New Vegas a comparatively better game. Because the latest Fallout wasn't basically just another (excellent) Elder Scrolls game with the setting swapped to a post-apocalyptic future. (Seriously though, Bethesda are my heroes, just not for Fallout)
My personal eagerness to play Starcraft is that it was (and is) one of the most refined and balanced strategy games ever made, while presenting three sides each with unique play styles and strategies. I'm also speaking chiefly to the single player instant action and story modes, for a quick hit of self-contained fun and for Blizzard's obscenely well done cut scenes respectively.
After the travesty that was Supreme Commander (a game that could not even hold an unlit matchstick to it's predecessor Total Annihilation), feeling a little cheated by both Tiberium Sun and Red Alert 3 (for poor ai, balancing and some design issues and excessive slapstick/cliche-ness respectively) and the supposed disappointment that was Halo wars (a game that I admittedly missed), I look forward to playing an RTS that is familiar in terms of polish and quality while also being allowed to toy with new and interesting tech trees and units in a setting which is both familiar and evolved. Or giving a huge 5-toed hoof in the 'bits if I'm disappointed (which is incredibly unlikely but it's good to be grounded I guess >.>)
/WoT
RTS games can offer a lot of strategy elements, but just because they are there doesn't mean that the game will force you to use them. There's no prompt or indicator that says that your unarmed troops can be the most deadly, or that two attacks are better than one but I can't even recall how many times I've laughed myself silly after ending a match with a handful of engineers and a troop transport (C&C) or a land-based throw away attack providing a distraction while I airlifted siege weaponry and air support into the back of someone's base (Protoss).gagalloogie said:
You can't decry a game for having systems in place that clearly define a genre. Saying that RTS games are obsolete because they boil down to "build troops, collect reasorces: archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer etc" is like saying FPS games are one dimensional because they boil down to "Shoot guy in head, get bigger gun, shoot next guy in head". All that aside though, I did find it amusing that you refer to Starcraft as a "looking like a Classic RTS" when every RTS game since C&C and Warcraft:Orcs and Humans has used those two as some form of template because those two games defined what an RTS was. Starcraft doesn't just look like a classic, it actually is a classic, even though it did come out a year after Age of Empires.
Starcraft doesn't need to "make RTS's good". One of the big draws to Starcraft is that we haven't had a chance to play new Starcraft content in almost a decade, that rather than hammer out shitty sequel after shitty sequel until the consumer's wallet is as dry and barren as Carol Channing (cookie to whoever gets the reference), Blizzard has taken the time to properly plan and design a new game that will (hopefully) contain the formula of being partly what we remember and love (For the swarm!), partly what we had hoped for (a Zerg unit that can move while burrowed), and partly cool stuff we wouldn't have even thought of (a walking alien tank that counts as both a land and air unit which fires sweeping laser blasts).
The real shocker for me is that I'm not sure how you can claim that Starcraft 2 won't bring anything new to the genre in the same breathe that you call Fallout New Vegas a comparatively better game. Because the latest Fallout wasn't basically just another (excellent) Elder Scrolls game with the setting swapped to a post-apocalyptic future. (Seriously though, Bethesda are my heroes, just not for Fallout)
Can't the same thing be argued for online FPS games? After every match you're back to how you started the last one? As a genre, RPG's would seem to have the strongest examples of persistence, but that's because their central element (no matter how disjointed) is the story and as far as online content goes I have not played an MMORPG with anything more than basic flavor text spread liberally over "Go find these guys, kill them dead, take their stuff".Onyx Oblivion said:
My personal eagerness to play Starcraft is that it was (and is) one of the most refined and balanced strategy games ever made, while presenting three sides each with unique play styles and strategies. I'm also speaking chiefly to the single player instant action and story modes, for a quick hit of self-contained fun and for Blizzard's obscenely well done cut scenes respectively.
After the travesty that was Supreme Commander (a game that could not even hold an unlit matchstick to it's predecessor Total Annihilation), feeling a little cheated by both Tiberium Sun and Red Alert 3 (for poor ai, balancing and some design issues and excessive slapstick/cliche-ness respectively) and the supposed disappointment that was Halo wars (a game that I admittedly missed), I look forward to playing an RTS that is familiar in terms of polish and quality while also being allowed to toy with new and interesting tech trees and units in a setting which is both familiar and evolved. Or giving a huge 5-toed hoof in the 'bits if I'm disappointed (which is incredibly unlikely but it's good to be grounded I guess >.>)
/WoT
