SC2 lives off nostalgia?

[finalguy]

"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."
"You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future"
SC1 is THE rts for e-sports. so... u sir fail

 

[SquirrelPants]

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.

Yeah. It's great that they haven't messed with the core mechanics much. They changed the way that Vespene gas works a bit, they added rich minerals, but honestly those are the only two things I think they changed, and those are both for the better.

Blizzard, as I said, did not WANT to innovate. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100215-Blizzard-Doesnt-Care-About-Innovation-for-StarCraft-II] They had a solid game, they weren't just gonna tear down the original and sell millions of copies of a stupid gimmicky game that no one's gonna remember in twelve years. They took the foundation they already had, and then they built a new, better structure on top of it.

If they had changed the formula at all, I don't think I would have bought it. So-called "innovative" RTS games have always just been really boring to me.

 

[Vaer]

I'm one of the first to say that Blizzard is stagnating, that they lack innovation, however you my friend are wrong, sure starcraft 2 is more of the same with minor changes but it doesn't change the fact that it is more of the same goodness, I mean.. why change what isn't broken ? the gameplay of the first StarCraft game had already reached perfection long before the release of the second, it is fast tactical and fun with none of the added crap of other RTS's.

I love Supreme Commander but if I'd have to play it online I'd die of old age.. a single match of Supreme commander would take 2.5 hours easy and thats more or less 7 starcraft 2 moderate length matches.

And now to your examples.. Homeworld 2 is a broken unbalanced piece of crap, it's great in single player but I wouldn't want to go multi on it.

Stronghold has the same problem as supreme commander it takes forever to finish a match.

There's also the thing that all of your examples are very unbalanced games witch doesn't do much to competitive matches.

And really, are you sober ? .. you talk about freshness and list games that are 7 or more years old.

Another thing is that StarCraft 2 as well as the first StarCraft completely obliterates all of the games listed in both single player campaign and multiplayer competitive matches, StarCraft is based on fast decisions and micro and it perfected its gameplay along the years, it knows what it is and knows that people like it because of that so why would it change ?

People always like asking for change but when it comes the cry about it and if it doesn't come they still cry about it because they are a bunch of little trolls that like to make stupid threads on diferent forums .. really, look at all the franchises that made drastic changes and look how they all burned because of it :

Prince of Persia ( the cell shaded one) - hated
Deus Ex Invisible War - hated
Heroes of Might and Magic 4 - hated
Splinter Cell Conviction - hated
X-com ( the one being developed ) - hated even before being released
Prince of Persia Warrior Within - Considered by many the black sheep of the sands of time trilogy
Stronghold 2 - hated

And there are a lot more, and consider that all the games I've listed aren't necesarilly bad, people just like to complain.

 

[thahat]

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)*

il that guy with you @ the montly subscriptions XD
also at SC2, but not at its single player.
but yes, SC1, sucked mayor donkeyballs.

 

[InfernoJesus]

I've never played the original Starcraft and I'm hooked on Starcraft 2.

 

[Plazmatic]

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.

proove this is wrong, by the sales alone, more people have bought the game in most places than people who own the original. and the fact that I have never played the origional, and I think starcraft 2 is awsome

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)*

 

[lacktheknack]

Not to me apparently.

My Top 5 RTS Games:
1. StarCraft 2
2. World in Conflict
3. Age of Empires 2
4. Starcraft
5. Age of Empires

I dunno, maybe Starcraft 2 is simply... GOOD? I have quite a few complaints of the original, and I have fewer for the sequel. I don't see the nostalgia kicking in.

 

[Pearwood]

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

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

Blizzard tried experimenting with war3, it was largely a success. I was dubious about how heroes would fit in to an rts without being overpowered but it was largely well done besides a few bullshitty heroes. But in SC what would you have them do? The biggest selling point about Starcraft was each race was both unique and very finely balanced, if they added new mechanics that could easily tip that balance.

They've made high ground more common and put ramps outside main bases on I think every map so that's more of a point than it was in SC1, they've redone a lot of units including staples like hydralisks and dragoons (both now second tier and more expensive).

 

[ToxinArrow]

SC2 is good, but far form the best RTS ever.

That title goes to Total Annihilation.

 

[pneuma08]

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.

Okay, taking your argument at face value, I'm failing to see how this is a bad thing in any event. Not every game (or any entertainment product) has to advance its genre in order to achieve greatness. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it rarely is the case that advancement and greatness are shared in the same product (more often than not great products are the result of refinement of innovation). Even the original Starcraft wasn't particularly innovative at the time, and I think we can all agree its impact is about as great as it comes.

 

[tzimize]

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)*

Today many RTSes have other mechanics to focus on than what SC2 does. Wether this is a good or a bad thing I cant say. Maybe it is neither, however while SC2 have excellent gameplay I am also going to hate on it because of the awful story. The story is so much worse than the SC1 story my heart bleeds, and to me SC2 will FOREVER be inferior story-wise to SC1.

In fact I think Wings of Liberty was so bad story-wise that I am willing to bet that not even the entire new SC2-trilogy will compare to the original SC1 story-wise. And that is 3 games vs 1.

That said, SC did perfect something. Basebuilding, economy management (even if the economy-management is on a stupid-simple level, you have to make decisions very fast which can make or break the game) and potentially microing. Even if SC2 is not like new RTSes it still does what it does best, best. Except the story.

 

[Generic Difference]

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.

You are right ofcourse.

You just have to discount the excellent game balance, amazing multiplayer ranking and matchmaking, pro gaming potential, insanely good campaign design, incredibly powerful map editor and... well... let's just say production values the likes of which most big studioes never achieve.

Then yes, they were obviously aiming for the money and not what the fans want.

Unless, just maybe, Blizzard is so damn rich and popular because they actually make good games.

Huh... something to think about.

 

[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?

And no, it doesn't. World in conflict is a shit game and company of heroes I heard great things about, though its a completely different type of RTS. SC2 is great, and stands on its own. Would it have had as many sales were it not for SC1? I very much doubt it, but its a great game non-the-less. SC2 is different from SC1, if you're gonna start saying that it has similarities I'll point you at MW2, L4D2, and millions of other sequels out there. Its a game that tries to be a sequel while still appeasing its fans, that's not something it should be scorned for, especially when there wasn't anything wrong with the first game.

 

[someotherguy]

So far I've read the following, tell me if I'm right.

Someone who thinks that a genre with very little ground to innovate on is going purely off nostalgia, while I have three friends who bought it and never played the first one, and I imagine there are thousands more like this. People who are hooked on the word 'innovate' need to rethink some things. Yes, innovation does drive the genre forward, but just because a game lacks it, doesn't make it bad. How would you have innovated in an RTS game? Now consider you're up on the corporate ladder on blizzard, do you A) Risk millions of dollars on what 75% of people will call a gimmick, and the other 25% will say makes you a god. Or B) used a tried and tested formula that all people like. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Also, What I think some may be overlooking here, blizzard created most of the modern day innovations in RTS that you take as normal.

Also, a game to simple for your tastes. lol?

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

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

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

Blizzard tried experimenting with war3, it was largely a success. I was dubious about how heroes would fit in to an rts without being overpowered but it was largely well done besides a few bullshitty heroes. But in SC what would you have them do? The biggest selling point about Starcraft was each race was both unique and very finely balanced, if they added new mechanics that could easily tip that balance.

They've made high ground more common and put ramps outside main bases on I think every map so that's more of a point than it was in SC1, they've redone a lot of units including staples like hydralisks and dragoons (both now second tier and more expensive).

Elevation is hardly something exciting and new in RTSs, nor is redoing a few units. Starcraft did very different, interesting, and balanced races, that's true. Warcraft 3 shows that Blizzard knows how to do new things...

If you ask me, Starcraft 2 is the way it is for a simple and irritating reason. The fans. From my discussions with them, they seem to be incapable of letting Starcraft 2 by anything other than a shinier Starcraft. I can't fathom this pro-stagnation viewpoint, and I'm not saying that all Starcraft fans are like this, but this is my theory.

It's mostly the fans fault, but it's also Blizzard's fault for giving into them.

 

[Ildecia]

(well, Tychus and Tosh were awesome anyway)

You didn't like Matt or Nova?

And Major Ocelot Prince Valerian! He was cool too. Not to mention Duran? Dr. Narud :3

Plus we got to see a bunch of upcoming Protoss characters, and Artanis' funky new hat. ;D

imma take what you said about protoss people here.

i personally love the protoss like no other; and when i played the mission where you get the entire council of badassery, i was in heaven. Selendis was my favorite tho; she came in with the carriers *sigh* simply beautiful.

OP: if you hate Blizzard fine; but dont hate the game you haven't formulated an opinion about yet though. Play it. make your decision. THEN make the thread.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I'm outta this thread - just repeating the same things from this thread and others.

I give up.

 

[The Austin]

Yeah, I agree.

I think that there are many, many, better RTS's out there that are being pushed aside by a wave of nostalgia.

BUT, I haven't played StarCraft, so I don't really know for sure.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

What did you expect? Blizzard said "We're making Starcraft 2", and the fan base said "MOAR STARCRAFT!", add in the fact that Starcraft is still unofficially South Korea's national sport, and Blizzard are walking tough ground. If they change anything truly major, the massive fanbase will squall at them. If they don't, they make a minority mildly unhappy.

Gee, I wonder what they will do.

And in the end, they deleted a few units, added some in, changed the in-between missions area, rebalanced it, made the missions really fun, interesting and unique, added a challenge mode, rebalanced battle.net, added difficulties, branching decisions, upgrades, fixed that DAMNABLE 12 UNIT SELECTOR... That's one hell of an expansion.