SC2 lives off nostalgia?

[Cody211282]

Innovation does always mean better.

Really? The detractors of Command and Conquer 4 would disagree with you.

Now there is a game that nostalgia couldn't even make me buy, it was just that bad.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

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.

First, it did not.

Second, now that I've picked myself up off the ground from rofling, I'd like you to play Starcraft and then tell me it lacks complex combat and strategic depth. Let's see how well you do Attack Moving marines into Lurkers.

Third, Starcraft is still evolving and "staying fresh" to this day. It's constantly changed the entire time it's been around, for example we recently had a bunch of Zerg vs Zerg in the Korean Proleague that went for 40 minutes and used just about every Zerg unit in the game as opposed to the standard of using just mutalisks and zerglings.

Fourth, National sport of Korea.

Now that I've defended Starcraft, Starcraft 2 is just more of the same with less skill. It is prettier though...

Also to that one guy who said SC2 was the most challenging RTS they've played, go play the original, WAY harder. Much more fun though.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Innovation does always mean better.

Really? The detractors of Command and Conquer 4 would disagree with you.

Really? I kinda wish that you read what I wrote instead of like, not reading what I wrote.

 

[II2]

I realize sympathizing with "the man" isn't trendy, but consider it from the Blizzard dev team's view:

- The fans want STARCRAFT (like a pack of rabid dogs eying your sandwich)

- Even if a gamble at innovation was successful, tremendous numbers of fans would be outraged that the series had "betrayed" it's very specific design mechanics.

Thus,

Blizzard takes their sweet ass time to develop the most STARCRAFT STARCRAFT they can, to hold a megaphone up to what works and deliver a polished, modernized reboot of a very specific game.

And lo' ... it worked.

Even if SC2 isn't your bag, consider it's draw and indirect contribution to the economy and userbase of RTS and PC games (that tend to go hand in hand).

Get them started young and wait for their tastes to mature into an appreciation for variety.

 

[pneuma08]

Wait, I forgot about the other regret I have with SC2 - I regret playing that arcade game in the cantina. It's a pretty bad shmup. Stupid OP carrier.

 

[Dudemeister]

I hate how Blizzard no longer makes games, but products.

Games are products. Mass produced products.
Blizzard's games are damn enjoyable products.

 

[tehroc]

Innovation does always mean better.

Really? The detractors of Command and Conquer 4 would disagree with you.

Really? I kinda wish that you read what I wrote instead of like, not reading what I wrote.

You cant argue against fanboys especially the rabid ones found on the escapist. Quite sure your disagreements with the fanboys invalidates any opinion you might have.

 

[Pyotr Romanov]

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

Same here, thread terminated in 2 posts, and I agreed with the first one as well.
If only all threads were resolved this quickly...
No wait, that'd be boring.

 

[SquirrelPants]

SC2 is a good game, but it does rely heavily on nostalgia so that you will buy into the 1 game in 3 parts thing.

*Sigh* This again?

Count how many missions are in SC2. Go and count them.

There are 29 missions in Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. There are 30 in Starcraft.

You are quite literally one mission less in WoL, and when you consider the vast improvements made to the Map Editor (TPS? FPS? Sidescroller? Warcraft 3 Heroes? We can do it all and more), the whole "1 game in 3 parts" thing starts to fall apart.

I agree completely. It's not one game in three parts, it's one story in three games.

Innovation does always mean better.

Really? The detractors of Command and Conquer 4 would disagree with you.

Really? I kinda wish that you read what I wrote instead of like, not reading what I wrote.

You cant argue against fanboys especially the rabid ones found on the escapist.

I don't see anyone being a fanboy, honestly. StarCraft and its sequel are both relatively simple, but complex in that it's quite deep and requires a lot of thought to play properly and win.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

You cant argue against fanboys especially the rabid ones found on the escapist.

True...

Games are products. Mass produced products.
Blizzard's games are damn enjoyable products.

I don't think you got what I meant - Starcraft 2 is there to make money first. It isn't there to make the RTS scene a better place and it's not there to improve things. It's just an expansion off of Starcraft.

 

[Soushi]

And so it begins, the same hting that happened to Dark Knight, Avatar and so many other good and popular things.
It seems these days that the best way for people to feel in the loop or cool, is to harp on something popular and that a lot of people like. This is mainly because, what used to be geeky and a culture all of its own, like video games, has now become mainstream. to be a geek is the new jock, and jocks are the new geeks.
Ah well, this will blow over, jsut as soon as something new comes out that people can harp on instead. The cycle continues.

 

[SquirrelPants]

i hate blizzard because they basically ripped the idea of warhammer 40k entirely off. I hate blizzard because they took one game, and made it three (because they knew you'd fuckin buy it).

Go read Starship Troopers. That is what StarCraft is inspired by. There's a bit in there from 40K, but they are in no right ripping it off.

And I repeat, it's not one game in three parts, it's one story in three games. Wings of Liberty has 29 missions to play, as well as challenge missions and the like. If that is not a complete game, I don't know what is.

 

[Amnestic]

You cant argue against fanboys especially the rabid ones found on the escapist. Quite sure your disagreements with the fanboys invalidates any opinion you might have.

Another person who can't seem to differentiate between "fan" and "fanboy". Sad.

 

[tehroc]

You cant argue against fanboys especially the rabid ones found on the escapist. Quite sure your disagreements with the fanboys invalidates any opinion you might have.

Another person who can't seem to differentiate between "fan" and "fanboy". Sad.

Not really, his opinion didn't fit your jive and you automatically declare his opinions invalid, thats the mark of a fanboy.

 

[Pearwood]

I hate how Blizzard no longer makes games, but products.

A game is a product. No game company makes games just for charity, they all want a return on their investment. It seems the people who're complaining all dislike Blizzard, I haven't seen anyone say that the game is bad without giving me the impression they'd love the game if it were published by someone else.

To say it's an expansion of Starcraft doesn't make much sense either really. It's an expansion in the sense that it is set in the same world with some of the same characters but nothing else. The changes to mechanics are pretty significant, we have new units and some old ones disappeared.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Snip

I picked up Starcraft 2 because I had to for a graduate thesis project. Honestly, I didn't remember jack about Starcraft 1 and I didn't understand for a minute why people were treating this release like it was something special. If anything I was expecting the worst as I don't like RTS games and frankly really really resent Blizzard for what I felt like was an undeserved reputation. It never seemed right to me that they survived while studios like Bullfrog, makers of Dungeon Keeper, bit the dust. As to Starcraft itself, I regarded it as kind of a fun toy and little else. It was amusing to dick around in the map editor from time to time or screw with cheat codes, but there wasn't anything memorable about the experience for me. Frankly the characters felt like little more than blips on my radar and I'm just not good at RTSes. When this thing was announced I flat-out didn't care, and I only begrudgingly forked over the money for this game in the interest of studying its alleged narrative choice system, that being my thesis topic.

Let me tell you. This game's fantastic. The single-player campaign builds on the RTS genre beautifully. The story's great, the missions are splendidly inventive, not a single one of them comes off as filler, no two of them are the same, and the whole package is polished to a mirror sheen. The characters and their struggles are really engaging, the setting is showcased in spectacular detail as you're able to explore your headquarters/ship between missions, and the narrative choice system, while not micromanaged to the point of Mass Effect or Dragon Age's extensive dialogue trees, gives a really strong sense of personalization and lets the player explore their relationship with the other characters and the game's themes.

I don't like this genre. I didn't care about Starcraft and harbored very little to no nostalgia over it. I was set out to not like this game, actually holding a huge grudge against Blizzard for World of Warcraft and what it's done to a lot of my fellow student designers (their philosophy: "Blizzard is perfect because they've never made a bad game, so just copy World of Warcraft and Diablo"), and against Activision for Bobby Kotick. StarCraft 2 is spectacularly good, though, instantly becoming one of my favorite games in spite of all this overwhelming negativity.

Food for thought.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I hate how Blizzard no longer makes games, but products.

A game is a product. No game company makes games just for charity, they all want a return on their investment. It seems the people who're complaining all dislike Blizzard, I haven't seen anyone say that the game is bad without giving me the impression they'd love the game if it were published by someone else.

No. Just no. Blizzard takes things atrociously safe, despite their piles of money.

Starcraft 2 is there to make money first. It isn't there to make the RTS scene a better place and it's not there to improve things. It's just an expansion off of Starcraft.

Rather than shooting for the stars, they went for the profits. It doesn't suprise me, but it irks me all the same.

 

[Snotnarok]

Pretty sure that's stupid, you ever see what happens when you try to change a formula to a stellar series? See Sonic for reference, you wind up going back to what made the series good.

 

[Blue Musician]

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.

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*

Hahahahaha. Stronghold A good Game? Not by far. I experienced many problems with it, and it doesn't even compare to SC. But it's only his opinion. I think that the problem with him is that he isn't approaching to it with an open mind, or that he was expecting a whole new RTS revolution. SC2 has a basic classic gameplay, which is what makes it fun these days because every damn RTS is trying to delete resources, buildings, etc.
SC is not broken, nor it's stale. Not so many people will like it, but most of us will appreciate it, say just like chess.

I only played Crusader, but I found no issues, and overall found it very good, certainly the best castle sim.

I would say the best castle sim ever. But that's because there actually aren't many. It isn't that good as he is praising it. Sure, it's enjoyable, but nothing to remember for a long time.

 

[Stryc9]

Man, Chess really lives off of nostalgia. It's so basic. I don't get how anyone can play a game without 3d combat, tactical zoom, terrain bonuses and cover mechanics. Chess is so dated.

I must argue here.

Chess has 3D combat, and if you have a magnifying glass there's tactical zoom as well.

Yea but if I'm one of those poor unfortunates who can't afford a magnifying glass then I'm at a disadvantage to all those rich pricks who can afford them. The game is imbalanced!