SC2 lives off nostalgia?

[Kurokami]

It really bothers me that people consider games like Starcraft 1/2 to be superior to a next generation RTS such as World In Conflict/Company of Heroes. Starcraft 1 was a great game when it came out in 1998, but when people keep saying shit like "Starcraft is the best RTS" I facepalm.

Really? A game with basic RTS mechanics (though it lacked que-build back in the day) is superior to 3d graphics, complex combat, and tactical depth? I really like Age of Empires 2, classic RTS, but do you know what? It isn't as good as Homeworld 2 (I have heard the first one is better) or Opposing Fronts, I know difference between nostalgia and game that is still good.

On the other end of the spectrum we have games like Stronghold: Crusader and Battlezone, games that perfected a niche (and would eventually have inferior sequels) and have yet to be de-throned. The difference between these games is that the former no longer can claim originality in their gameplay, while the latter can. Battlezone has a completely functional and easy-to-use system that combines RTS and TPS gameplay, with Stronghold having a castle sim and RTS hybrid that keeps it from bogging down and becoming stale.

You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future; or else it becomes a game that lives on nostalgia.

Not my own words, but I agree entirely,you?

*Yes,I am really set on becoming "that guy" that hates one particular game,it shall be SC2 for me, don't know why, maybe I hate Blizzard for asking monthly subscriptions -edit-(WoW)*

Do you realize that WoW needs monthly subscriptions?

You trully believe that, with all of the free to play/ item shop MMO's out there? Some have just as many people ( well not AS many but alot) playing.

free to play games tend to live off their item shops and tend to have choppy, done in their spare time new shit, if any at all. Do I like it? No, but WoW has people still working for them who needa get paid, I don't think it has to be THAT large either, but meh, all things considered its not that much.

 

[Exia91]

You hate starcraft II because blizzard charges monthly subs for World of Warcraft?

-m

My thought when I read the OP.

OT:
There will always be people lovin' and hatin' games. Make up your own mind and do not follow everyone around like sheep following the shepherd.
Sometimes it's even better to keep that opinion to yourself to not invoke somekind of unnecessary discussion.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

snip

I'm not sure you get the meaning of the word "balance". If the game is "balanced", it doesn't mean that you can't rush anybody, it means that no one race/faction is stronger than the other. Now, I haven't played RA3, so I'll refrain from uneducated comments in that front.

I was using balanced in a more open way, and the game is truly balanced as even the top units can be taken down easily by the right other unit (and I mean a 10 unit attack being defeated in a minute with minimum losses on the other side).
It just feels that every unit truly has a strong a weak point and that is to me a true balance (and the balance between groups is also extremely good, so the overall feel is wonderful).

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

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.

Actually I think it's as good as it's predecessor excluding the pre-ending (that felt a bit rushed), and the fact that you have to keep getting new units slowly throughout the campaign - hopefully when they do make the 2 sequels, they won't do this again as people will already have been introduced. Then again they could do the same thing just for protoss and zerg :/.

Apart from that I quite liked the game. Especially since I managed to complete the campaign on normal mode (without cheats) when I usually fail at RTS .

Edit:

Major Ocelot Prince Valerian!

I literally burst out laughing at that.

I think they have to give it to you in bits and pieces, because if you can Get battlecruisers from the beginning, and you abuse them, any mission ceases to be challenging and the story no longer makes sense.

Unless they gave you money restrictions, the campaign felt a little restrictive with the funds.


But maybe they could perfect the system and let you have your cake and eat it too.

Actually I completed the transformer (viking) mission with bansees and wraiths (do you know how long I just spent looking for that name - also shame it didn't make its way into the multiplayer, though it would have been a bit of an air-dominator).

Also double (or triple in your case) posting is frowned upon. Please use the edit button, or wait for somebody else to post first - in which time you can look for anything you missed.

 

[SilverUchiha]

(Little Off Topic, but same idea)

Reminds me of Golden Eye. Everyone in my circle of friends loves it and calls it the best FPS ever. Every time I play it, I get headaches and want to punch someone in the face for making me play the damn thing. It might have been considered the best during the cartridge and cassette days, but I can think of plenty of FPS games since Golden Eye that are less eyestrain and just as much fun (if not more so).

 

[Kagim]

Dawn of war one might have had a bit of a strong start with its first game and expansion but the latter two expansions were essentially glorified map packs. Maybe two pages of story in dialogue while fighting the other races main base. The stale campaign could have been easily replicated by playing a dozen or so random maps, occasional talking to yourself in a smokers voice.

Yeah because the unit limit didn't change the gameplay at all.....Or having Necrons and Tau...Granted though the last expansion was pretty sh*t, but it fine tuned the existing races to almost perfection.

No, it didn't really change anything for me. I beat the campaign with the Imperium and didn't notice any unit limit effecting my campaign mode. I'm not big on multiplayer matches so maybe it effected you there. However i found the single player campaign modes weak.

I found the story free campaigns to be terrible and boring. Sure they added two new races but that was not what i was looking for in the game. "They bad! Go smash!" Is not enough to keep me in the game. So while Dawn of war gave the finger to story telling and Dawn of War 2 seemed to decide that we only needed the story to progress after replaying the same map six times Starcraft 2 gave you story progression in-between every mission.

Maybe you care a great deal more about the PvP component. I however care significantly more about the single player aspect. Which Starcraft 2 delivered in spades while dawn of war shit its pants to me for.

 

[Fidelias]

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

This. There's more to a game than just the gameplay. The campaign is what blew my mind. Probably the best rts story I've ever experienced.

 

[FightThePower]

I never played the first game but I love Starcraft II. Complex isn't always better.

Besides, saying it has 'no tactical depth' is plain wrong.

As for SC2's single player, the story was told much better but:
1) What's up with the Kerrigan/Raynor romance??
2) It's ridiculously easy.

There are these things called 'difficulty levels'.

 

[Kagim]

No offence but if the unit limit didn't change the game for you, you mustn't have been any good at it.

I could beat the Campaign on hard, so that's good enough for me. Once again, don't give a shit about multiplayer matches. Maybe human players could stomp the shit out of me, don't care that much though because i don't care about straight up matches. The multiplayer i play in SC2 right now is Nexus Wars, Battlecraft, and red circle TD.

If you played Imperium, surely limiting the Kasrkin soldiers would have made a huge effect? And limiting Leman Russ'??

Not really. Even on hard I could march across the map with a firing line of basic soldiers. Priests attached to those juggernaut guys whose captains wear a viking helmet, with whatever ranged firing vehicle bringing up the rear. No strategy, just steam rolling forward. This is on Hard still.

As for SC2's single player, the story was told much better but:
1) What's up with the Kerrigan/Raynor romance??

Starcraft 1 sucked painfully at story telling. One of the reasons why i was not particularly fond of it. it was hinted at lightly, but the first was painful bad at character interactions.
It was supposed to be hinted he was in love. However i only really got there were friends in war and he was horny due to being surrounded by male marines all day.

2) It's ridiculously easy.

Even playing the Campaign on Brutal mode and completing the achievement challenges?

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

Actually I think it's as good as it's predecessor excluding the pre-ending (that felt a bit rushed), and the fact that you have to keep getting new units slowly throughout the campaign - hopefully when they do make the 2 sequels, they won't do this again as people will already have been introduced. Then again they could do the same thing just for protoss and zerg :/.

Apart from that I quite liked the game. Especially since I managed to complete the campaign on normal mode (without cheats) when I usually fail at RTS .

Edit:

Major Ocelot Prince Valerian!

I literally burst out laughing at that.

I think they have to give it to you in bits and pieces, because if you can Get battlecruisers from the beginning, and you abuse them, any mission ceases to be challenging and the story no longer makes sense.

Unless they gave you money restrictions, the campaign felt a little restrictive with the funds.


But maybe they could perfect the system and let you have your cake and eat it too.

Actually I completed the transformer (viking) mission with bansees and wraiths (do you know how long I just spent looking for that name - also shame it didn't make its way into the multiplayer, though it would have been a bit of an air-dominator).

Also double (or triple in your case) posting is frowned upon. Please use the edit button, or wait for somebody else to post first - in which time you can look for anything you missed.

Frowned upon by the Mods or the community?

Because if it's by the people who run the site, then yeah, valid.
But if it's not against the rules then I don't think it's an issue,

I'll check the guidelines page.

 

[PurpleSky]

It really bothers me that people consider games like Starcraft 1/2 to be superior to a next generation RTS such as World In Conflict/Company of Heroes. Starcraft 1 was a great game when it came out in 1998, but when people keep saying shit like "Starcraft is the best RTS" I facepalm.

Really? A game with basic RTS mechanics (though it lacked que-build back in the day) is superior to 3d graphics, complex combat, and tactical depth? I really like Age of Empires 2, classic RTS, but do you know what? It isn't as good as Homeworld 2 (I have heard the first one is better) or Opposing Fronts, I know difference between nostalgia and game that is still good.

On the other end of the spectrum we have games like Stronghold: Crusader and Battlezone, games that perfected a niche (and would eventually have inferior sequels) and have yet to be de-throned. The difference between these games is that the former no longer can claim originality in their gameplay, while the latter can. Battlezone has a completely functional and easy-to-use system that combines RTS and TPS gameplay, with Stronghold having a castle sim and RTS hybrid that keeps it from bogging down and becoming stale.

You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future; or else it becomes a game that lives on nostalgia.

Not my own words, but I agree entirely,you?

*Yes,I am really set on becoming "that guy" that hates one particular game,it shall be SC2 for me, don't know why, maybe I hate Blizzard for asking monthly subscriptions -edit-(WoW)*

Awww, dude, you're totally ripping me off! I'm the guy that's determined to hate SCII no matter what!

There can be only one. *queue fight music*

 

[Miumaru]

Well, when an old game is well done, and new stuff only makes the graphics better, better looking is no way to say its better.

But it's been VERY well established in this thread that SC2 is much, much more than a visual upgrade.

Was meant more as a general point for this type of argument, that graphics mean nothing. Morrowind is often regarded as superior than Oblivion (me being one) and most people who disagree often say graphics before anything. (Usually they played Oblivion first too)

 

[Traun]

It really bothers me that people consider games like Starcraft 1/2 to be superior to a next generation RTS such as World In Conflict/Company of Heroes. Starcraft 1 was a great game when it came out in 1998, but when people keep saying shit like "Starcraft is the best RTS" I facepalm.

Really? A game with basic RTS mechanics (though it lacked que-build back in the day) is superior to 3d graphics, complex combat, and tactical depth? I really like Age of Empires 2, classic RTS, but do you know what? It isn't as good as Homeworld 2 (I have heard the first one is better) or Opposing Fronts, I know difference between nostalgia and game that is still good.

On the other end of the spectrum we have games like Stronghold: Crusader and Battlezone, games that perfected a niche (and would eventually have inferior sequels) and have yet to be de-throned. The difference between these games is that the former no longer can claim originality in their gameplay, while the latter can. Battlezone has a completely functional and easy-to-use system that combines RTS and TPS gameplay, with Stronghold having a castle sim and RTS hybrid that keeps it from bogging down and becoming stale.

You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future; or else it becomes a game that lives on nostalgia.

Not my own words, but I agree entirely,you?

*Yes,I am really set on becoming "that guy" that hates one particular game,it shall be SC2 for me, don't know why, maybe I hate Blizzard for asking monthly subscriptions -edit-(WoW)*

Ok, I will throw the stone here. Did you really quote /v/? Did you really took something of 4chan and posted it?

Simply put - Starcraft 2 is unique. After years of trying to rip off Starcraft people finally gave up. So today, before SC2 a RTS game that was macro and micro balanced didn't exist. I kinda wish it did, Starcraft gave me what I wanted.

And also - Starcraft 2 smooths out what Starcraft 1 started. There are small problems, but there is enough time for them to be fixed.

 

[pakker]

One more guy saying its "all unit composition" or "its all about micro" and i go mad.. Starcraft is first of all a game about strategy, opposed to DoW2 and CoH that is really heavily tactic based. Also, to me, those two mentioned tactic games fall on their face due to extreem imbalance due to terrain advantage and the "random factor" that is missing and, as someone else mentioned, you just throw suggestions at your units and hope it works out fine. Also from my experience of CoH alot of battles can be won basicly by static defense and slowly advancing... Anyone hear "Terran"-style gameplay? DoW on the other hand focuses -alot- on the single unit (or in this case the squads) their abilities and firepower... Alot like Protoss do.

Also i can never see squadbased games with individual squad upgrades become balanced, ever. Mainly because, here comes a squad, ONE GUY holds a panzerfaust and is going to get around your tank, i want to pick that guy off first so my tank is safe to engage.. but i cant as i can only target the WHOLE freakin squad... In starcraft can I pick off that infestor that is screwing with my colossi? Whoopti-freakin-yes...

From what I see across the boards on multiple forums and people hating on SC2 have done the following:
Played the campaign.
Played a few vs. AI games.
Used mass-strats or cheesed...
Went online and got placed in the bronze-silver range.
Thought "this cant be real, the game sucks cus my ONE AND ONLY strat doesn't work every time".
Refused to practice or learn the game.
Went to forum to whine...

Imo, people who rage at starcraft2 for not being innovative are just silly. What is the point of making the perfect formula, if you just throw it out the window (Yes im looking at you C&C4). Innovation is only good if it is used for something, making new gimmicks are totally pointless if its only used in that game, that one time... Was it really innovative or just a one-shot gimmick?

Starcraft2 is complex if you are above the avarage RTS-monkey (Alot of people think they are, but they are not). This isn't C&C3 where massing a single unit wins the day (ever got scorpion rushed?). Most RTS games are imbalanced because the devs try to do two things that are just wrong:
1) High tech units beat everything below them. This does not hold true in Starcraft, as zealots (the most basicy protoss unit) tears apart the high-tech, expencive Thors of the terran...
2) Make too many freakin gimmicks. Instead of balancing out units, making the game versatile simply thanks to the units that the player controls and makes, they are too busy with making terrain give +/- hit and cover mechanics, and other very cool, but very imbalanced gimmicks.. There are TWO terrain gimmicks in SC2, High-ground (defenders advantage) and chock-points (not really a gimmick, but VERY important terrain features). None of them gives the "random stepping on +3 defence spot" but gives a tactical option for a good player to exploit...

TBH before you rack down a game with some random quote you found cool, get in-depth with the game, or gtfo the internet and take your fail with you.

 

[pwnzerstick]

I played the original starcraft a few years ago, but the fun I have playing starcraft 2 is certaianly not derived from my memories of the original.