Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Starcraft 2 is awesome
ThomasN7
87.18.7.148Member CommonPosts: 6,690
All I have to say is that the game plays and looks awesome. If you are a former player who thinks it isn't that good well think again. 
My first day in beta and I had such a blast. Launch day is going to be awesome!
30
Comments
It just bores me because it hasn't evolved since 90s RTS. I just feel like I played it all before and I was bored of it back then, do something new for 2010. I loved COH cause you could destroy the whole map and that was amazing. Also there was nothing of this boring resource gathering, you just captured points and had to fight for them. This games too similar to Starcraft so all that'll happen is people will get owned by Koreans and never play it like the first game.
Its boring for the same reason WoW is.
It does NOTHING new. I've played it all before. Playing it again in a simpler format isn't going to cut it. If I want a good RTS I'll stick with AoE 2. If I want a good MMO I'll stick with DAoC.
My personal favorite RTS was Rise of Nations, just had so many options to it, and I liked evolving my nation. Never was a fan of Starcraft.
It pains me greatly to say this, but I am bored out my mind with it. The only ray of light for me is the zerg. I just feel its SC1 but with kick ass graphics. I originally thought that would be enough but its not. Maybe League of Legends tainted me. who knows.
I think the fact that it hasn't changed much is just the best thing about it. Small additions and tweaking here and there, little more depth to the gameplay and updated graphics; what else do you need when the core of the game works so well? All RTS games go by very similar rules, revolutionary changes are hard or even impossible to make and most likely the audience wouldn't like it. People still play SC1 religiously, why to go change it too much. It's like some dude said along the lines, that perfection of design is not reached when there isn't anything left to be added, but when there is nothing to be taken off. I suppose that applies here as well to an extend. Starcraft is Starcraft, the problem isn't in the game, but in the player.
Waiting on Xsyon & betaing stuff
I am just surprised that Blizzard haven't gone the route of mobile platforms for their classic games rather than trying to reinvent the wheel with prettier graphics. I would have though Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft rts could look great and work really well on iPhone and similar devices. Starcraft 2 will be popular I think with rts crowd and has the benefit of the re-hauled Battle.net for online, but I feel its game is a re-vision of a classic. Does that merit full retail price release? Not in my book, so I guess I will wait for them to balance and patch the game post -launch and for the price of the retail box to halve before dipping my toes into it.
I don't think Blizzard has any creative people left - or maybe they are all working on the new MMO.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
No it's not awesome, it's old recycled crap with better graphic and flashy rainbows. I agree with AOE 2 and Rise of nations being far more strategically interesting and funny RTS games than whatever Bliz did with their zerg games (build as quick as possible 2 unit types max in mini maps, throw everything in a mess and win... yawn).
Just face it fanbois, Bliz made only one good game and it was Diablo 1, everything else was cheap polished copies from original better games from other developpers who had the balls to innovate, or from their own crap.
Starcraft 1 was no bad game (albeit no milestone either), and Starcraft 2 is probably no bad game as well. I personally always preferred the Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander series though, where you can fight wars in huge-ass battles and where you can concentrate on actual strategies instead of having to tell your dumb units via micro-management how to go to the toilet, because they can't do anything by themselves.
Still, I haven't found anything new or revolutionary about Starcraft 2. It's just like Starcraft 1, with better (but not outstanding) graphics. People hype it because other people hype it and because magazines hype it. And they hype it because of the name "blizzard" "starcraft" and the money involved, and not because it's an awesome game.
If it would be by an indie company noone would care about it. The magazines and websites would just say "solid game that's fun to play and has decent graphics, but offers nothing new".
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
SC2 is a true sucessor to SC1. Other games changed their forumla and tanked, look at DoW2 and CnC4 (granted CnC lost is a long time ago).
Just as much strategy required in SC1/2 than in some of the others you all talk about like AoE and CoH just its different strategy. In SC you have to stop your opponent from expanding if he does you have to raid his expansions destorying his workers to deny resources, harass the enemy to distrct him, fool the enemy into to thinking what kind of army you have, mean while you build an army, manage your economy, tech up, always be ready to switch tech, if the enemy comes at you with an air army what use is a ground army to counter him?
CoH for example can also be all about the biggest army, give the germans time to tech and mass tanks and they roll over you, so what do you do? you capture resources to deny income, you raid the opponent resource nods, you try to see what army the enemy has so you can build a counter army... and so on.
I release starcraft might play too fast for some of you old timers but it is what it is and its still played by ~50,000 people every day.
SC2 will be GOTY and it will deserve it. Relic lost the plot with DoW.. here's hoping they start making HW3.
Lol am i only one thinking that sc1 graphic is better than sc2? Sc2 looks like wow/warcraft
Missing its dark graphic.
They don't really need to be creative when so many of their "customers" will pay so much for a pixel-pony.
Let's be honest, Blizzard fans wouldn't care what they produced. They just eat up the mediocrity.
Just so ya sure the first screen is SC1, 2nd is WC3 3rd is SC2... "should of gone to spec savers"
Lets be honest its not possible to have a real talk about SC2 on these forums due to the hate for blizzard. Still it's fun to try.
I suppose Pac-Man and Donkey Kong Junior reached that state of perfection long ago too. Still, games and game design have moved on a lot since then, and the same applies to the period of time since Star craft was released 10 years ago.
I guess I'm somewhat disappointed, when Star Craft and Warcraft 3 were released these games were refreshing and something creatively different for their time. Now looking at SC2 it's very much a 'been there, done that' kinda feeling. Then again, Blizzard stated that they didn't go for innovation but polishing the existing gameplay, so can't fault them for that.
I just hope it's just that, and not that it's a sign that their current pool of top creative talent isn't on the same level of awesomeness as the mix of talent they had 5-10 years ago. But there's no doubt that the jump of gameplay innovation from Warcaft 2 to Warcraft 3 is larger than so far is seen from SC to SC2, with less years between WC2 and WC3. And still WC3 was a vast improvement to the already great WC2, so it can be done, changing the gameplay of your franchise and still making a better game.
I realise that they wanted the multiplayer options to be as good as it's with Star craft so that it would be picked up and treated as good an e-sport as Starcraft is in countries like Korea. So they didn't dare to tinker too much with that golden formula in fear of ruining it.
I heard that they reserved innovativeness and feel of freshness for the singleplayer campaigns, so that sounds good.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Hmm, no, I'm betting on ME2 to be that or 1 of the other top quality games released this year to get that title. Still, it's always fun to guess which one it'll be and see how close you came, and especially reading the forums of how right/wrong that award decision was
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Honestly it's a bit boring. There is nothing new to the MP hardly, and it is fun, but it just gets old fast. I will play through the campaign coop with a friend, and maybe play a few hundred online matches, but nothing close to how much I played the original.
DoW2 is an amazing game. One of the best co-op RTS's ever, and the multiplayer is crazy fun. It has a huge niche following and will continue to grow. I can't wait to see how they expand on it. Check the reviews.. even the expansion got 9's and earned them.
DoW2 and World in Conflict are two games that modified the old worn out formula and are great fun. SC2 is the exact same as 100 other games with some nice graphics. I will play and love it for how smooth and fun it is for a month or two, and then go back to DoW2 probably.
Hmm, I find people's reports that it hasn't evolved much from the first game disappointing, yet not unexpected since we're talking Blizzard who isn't exactly known for creative thnking.
Doesn't matter though, they'll sell billions I suppose and have succeeded in their main goal, (making money of course).
Heck, I'll buy it just because I loved the first one, and I rarely play single player games these days.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
League of Legends killed my interest for Starcraft 2 a long time ago. One of the BEST computer games out there right now. Absolutely addicted!
I'm kind of surprised at how little seems to improving. Sure there are some UI improvements, but a lot of the base game does seem to be the same beyond some units getting changed.
I guess I am different than some RTS players though. I always viewed an RTS as sort of a combat simulator where you are the commanding officer. As such, I always have thought units should have some small level of intelligence (so they don't do anything REALLY stupid which happens all too often) on their own and formations should definitely be part of such games (with commands for troops to scatter and so forth). I've never been a big fan of having to click on individual units one after another to micromanage them (micromanaging a scout is ok, but 10-40 guys in the middle of a battle is a bit much, imho). "Less clicking, more thinking" is how I like my games.
I'm ambivalent about resource gathering. I did like how recent RTS games focused on holding certain spots and gave bonuses for that. It would have been nice to see some innovation here, but this isn't that big a deal for me compared to my above concerns.
I'll probably play SC2 just because I enjoy the Starcraft story a LOT. As such I think I'll get my money's worth doing the campaigns (and it looks like the campaign has more innovation than the main game). Not sure if I'll play it on battlenet much or at all however.
TA was a lot of fun. Been a long, long time since I played it.
Can't argue with people's opinion but thats cool. I'm not understanding why people say "it plays the same". it is a rts and ofcourse it is going to play the same. As someone stated before, its point and click. An example of some innovatios are the stalker units with blink the mother ship which we didn' have in SC1. There are small things that make the game feel better than the original and the new graphics engine for this game is perfect. I thought the game wouldn't be as fun but I was wrong. That old SC feeling is defnitely back.
New units are just new units. They can change some strategy/tactics a bit, but they aren't innovations generally (Brood War didn't significantly change the GENERAL gameplay of SC, all it did was alter and provide new unit tactics courtesy of new units, but the game generally played the same).
There are TONS of RTS's out there. They do not all play the same. Rise of Nations is very different from Starcraft and so is the Warhammer RTS. They all play quite differently. There's a lot of room for interface and unit AI/command innovations as well as map-based innovations. SC2 seems to have a tiny bit of the former two (you can use an ability without selecting an individual unit for instance), but nothing all that impressive overall. As you say, it is just small things and that's a bit disappointing.
Hmm, if you yourself admit it is just "small things" that make the game feel better, then how do you not understand when people say it plays the same?
Very good control interface. Much better than SC. The only real reason for me to buy SC2 would be if they made the UI substantially better.
More units? Meh. Overall, I preferred playing basic SC - without the Brood War units. Except I really liked the Terran Medics. I heard that Medics were taken out of multiplayer in SC2.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
They were replaced by the Medivac, a drop ship and biological healing unit in one. Although medics are in the single player along with Golioths, firebats and other classic units. Just dropped from multiplayer to make room for the new units and ofc balance.