SC2 lives off nostalgia?
- Thread starter PurpleSky
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I thought Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 were fun for awhile, but games like Starcraft II, and the older CnC games make you feel like you have direct control over all your units and exactly where and when they attack. In Company of Heroes, you generally set up your squad's positioning, but you can't control every burst shot if you wanted to. That's where Starcraft and Starcraft II excel, I think - in giving people that extra bit of control. In CoH, I'd often get very frustrated when a squad of Riflemen couldn't just make one last shot against something right now - where CoH provides influence, Starcraft provides control.
I only read through one page of replies, forgive me if I repeated anything.
I only read through one page of replies, forgive me if I repeated anything.
I played WoW and hate it.Mazty said:
I've played all the Command and Conquers, Dawn of War 1 + 2, Warcraft 3 and SupCom 1 + 2.
I like Starcraft 2 more because it takes an already great formula and refines it. It does exactly what it was trying to do. The B-movie space opera presented as a serious story is enjoyable to sit through, each campaign mission is unique with the entire setup of the campaign mode being interesting, units are balanced and varied, I find the art style appealing, challenge missions are enjoyable, B-net is fun and it's accessible enough that my friends actually want to play it.
I don't need any more than that. You can argue all you want and spout your preconceived notions and troll if you please but the fact of the matter is that people like it and you're not going to make them agree with you no matter how much you try. Seriously, play a game you like and let us all enjoy what we want to enjoy.
The analogy doesn't completely apply, because I think StarCraft 2 is quite clearly a marked improvement on SC1, both in mechanics and content (let alone graphical polish). If someone made a Chess 2 that was essentially a better Chess with the exact same mechanics, that'd be the same. Obviously, not a perfect analogy - it's more to suggest a formula doesn't need CHANGING; refinement is all right.Kanodin0 said:
I don't hate Starcraft 2. I loved the first one, but I'm somewhat hesitant to buy it before I know more about it.
What I do hate is people unfairly comparing it to other RTS subgenres. You can't say that Dawn of War 2 sucks in comparison to SC2 because they are not competing with each other. Nobody at Relic ever said that Dawn of War was ever going to battle Starcraft. DOW 1 and DOW 2, while being different from themselves in a number of ways, are very different games from SC1 or SC2.
The main reason that douchebag fanboys (the zealous ones) compare these games is because the units look similar. But if I start ranting about the aesthetic similarities between Warhammer 40K and Starcraft, we'll be here all night.
What I do hate is people unfairly comparing it to other RTS subgenres. You can't say that Dawn of War 2 sucks in comparison to SC2 because they are not competing with each other. Nobody at Relic ever said that Dawn of War was ever going to battle Starcraft. DOW 1 and DOW 2, while being different from themselves in a number of ways, are very different games from SC1 or SC2.
The main reason that douchebag fanboys (the zealous ones) compare these games is because the units look similar. But if I start ranting about the aesthetic similarities between Warhammer 40K and Starcraft, we'll be here all night.
I enjoyed SC2 for the same reason I enjoyed the first one; amusing setting. SC2 improves upon that reason by adding the excellent between mission sections on the ship.
The game mechanics though? Eh, I could take or leave. They're fairly simplistic, by necessity in the original and because the online community would have done horrible things to Blizzard if they had not been as close as possible in the sequel. I'm not a fan of RTS multiplayer, because I enjoy taking my time in such games. I'm a natural turtle, but that just doesn't happen online. Whether it's Zerglings or Ork Boyz or Chaos Cultists, odds are if you log into a multiplayer match, you will win or lose the game in the first five to ten minutes.
So yes, for a lot of people SC2 trades on nostalgia. For others, it's a relatively fun game in a really funny setting, and it's an amusing way to pass a few hours.
The game mechanics though? Eh, I could take or leave. They're fairly simplistic, by necessity in the original and because the online community would have done horrible things to Blizzard if they had not been as close as possible in the sequel. I'm not a fan of RTS multiplayer, because I enjoy taking my time in such games. I'm a natural turtle, but that just doesn't happen online. Whether it's Zerglings or Ork Boyz or Chaos Cultists, odds are if you log into a multiplayer match, you will win or lose the game in the first five to ten minutes.
So yes, for a lot of people SC2 trades on nostalgia. For others, it's a relatively fun game in a really funny setting, and it's an amusing way to pass a few hours.
Because they don't have raging fans and huge amounts of people who love it who will play it professionally. That's why. If you're implying that Starcraft is superior because it's considered an International Sport, it's not. Just because it's a Sport doesn't make it goldy. If Korea never existed, it wouldn't be nearly as popular and successful or an E-Sport.Proteus214 said:
I agree, it is living off Nostalgia in a certain way but that's not the main reason. It's because a large mass of people waited for a very long time.
Also, Starcraft is not the greatest RTS. Usually people on Youtube say that. Terrible Community...
Wrong. You will enjoy the RTS games we tell you to, or else.Cuddly Razor said:
Jokes aside, pretty much this. I didn't like the original Starcraft and I'm not about to waste however much money they decided to charge over here in Australia on the sequel. That being said, other people seem to like it a lot, so good for them. I'll play C&C and Company of Heroes and they can keep playing Starcraft, everyone wins.
I think that they basically pissed away a lot of what should have been him fighting the dominion on useless side missions, plus when he actually gets to the point were he could lead a full scale uprising he says to "give it time" then goes to char and you know doesn't finish the damn story, it's like if the terran missions on the first game has ended mission 7, it just feels unfinished from were it is, and thats a pisser because this is the only terran game we are going to get.Wicky_42 said:Sooo...Cody211282 said:wasn't enough of an 'achievement' for you? What did you want - some sort of badge for your profile? Oh, wait you got that tooInvading Char, fighting off basically the entirety of the Zerg army and then wiping them out using the device you've been gathering all damn game and in the process reuniting Raynor with his lost love
But seriously, all Raynor's got ahead of him is hell and hardship as the Dominion will be free to hunt him if Valerian turns on him, and he's done his able best to piss off religious zealot Protoss who may be being manipulated by a force that wants to eat the galaxy.
The other two races have much more interesting developing stories that can unfold as Raynor valiantly holds the line or whatever - Kerrigan readying the Zerg for the end times and Zeratul rallying the Protoss to go after the hybrids and perhaps double-teaming the big bad with the Zerg in a climatic end game.
To get monthly subs out of the way, you would need to charge monthly subscriptions in order to maintain those servers. Servers aren't free to host and maintaining them isn't either, or churning out updates for the games. Please understand why it's necessary before hating on it.
I love it how people point out Company of Heroes and World in Conflict to be superior to the "spam-fest" and "click-fest" of Starcraft, even though those two games practically have their own imbalances and "spam-fests" among their "constant tactical gameplay", nothing like a little Pio-spam and mass scout helicopters and mass medium/heavy choppers to change some opinions around.
To address your question, it goes like this, if a sequel to a game you played and thought was good was coming out, wouldn't you be more inclined to buy it? Wouldn't you also tell your friends this good game that you played is having a sequel and how it will be better than its predecessor?
The reason Starcraft 2 is popular is because of the competitive nature (And a nation to support that) behind it and the fanbase it gathered over the years. The fact that a 1998 game survived more than 10 years and still having people play it. The competitive part of it is also due to the company supporting it and patching what is considered really imbalanced, while games like World in Conflict and Company of Heroes doesn't have this kind of support and is left with certain imbalances. Having more than a certain number of imbalances, and you'll have something like Command and Conquer, which is practically dead if not rotting away, and you don't see that game being more popular than Company of Heroes because of that.
Innovation isn't equal to a game's quality or how good it is, the FPS genre is a decent example of this, it's like saying Team Fortress 2 should innovate, so it should have a cover system, iron sights and other stuff. Team Fortress 2 is essentially the same game as its predecessors, the only real difference is the fact it's more balanced and it has a few new features. Another example would be Counter-Strike Source, people still play that and people don't complain about lack of innovation in that game (And more people play that than TF2 itself).
I love it how people point out Company of Heroes and World in Conflict to be superior to the "spam-fest" and "click-fest" of Starcraft, even though those two games practically have their own imbalances and "spam-fests" among their "constant tactical gameplay", nothing like a little Pio-spam and mass scout helicopters and mass medium/heavy choppers to change some opinions around.
To address your question, it goes like this, if a sequel to a game you played and thought was good was coming out, wouldn't you be more inclined to buy it? Wouldn't you also tell your friends this good game that you played is having a sequel and how it will be better than its predecessor?
The reason Starcraft 2 is popular is because of the competitive nature (And a nation to support that) behind it and the fanbase it gathered over the years. The fact that a 1998 game survived more than 10 years and still having people play it. The competitive part of it is also due to the company supporting it and patching what is considered really imbalanced, while games like World in Conflict and Company of Heroes doesn't have this kind of support and is left with certain imbalances. Having more than a certain number of imbalances, and you'll have something like Command and Conquer, which is practically dead if not rotting away, and you don't see that game being more popular than Company of Heroes because of that.
Innovation isn't equal to a game's quality or how good it is, the FPS genre is a decent example of this, it's like saying Team Fortress 2 should innovate, so it should have a cover system, iron sights and other stuff. Team Fortress 2 is essentially the same game as its predecessors, the only real difference is the fact it's more balanced and it has a few new features. Another example would be Counter-Strike Source, people still play that and people don't complain about lack of innovation in that game (And more people play that than TF2 itself).
You should try the new chess game from activision. It's called 'Black Knight' and it's a first person shooter.John Funk said:
Even if changing the working formula is bad, I still want Blizzard to take a chance, I want them to make a completely new MMO/rts game,instead of adding to existing franchises, but they never do these things.John Funk said:And there we have a classic example of why "innovative" does not actually equal "better"PurpleSky said:You can make the pieces looks shiny and well detailed, even make the board in real life scale and with robots, and I guess it will be awesome.John Funk said:
But you could also do this to the board
And take a risk.
Maybe when people stop playing....so never....