I am an avid RTS player. I started with C&C, and its still the genre I spend 75% of my game-time on (mostly Relic games, but also WC3).
Here's my thing. Starcraft was great. It was innovative and compelling, and had amazing multiplayer. Its gotten old though...newer innovations in RTS such as firing arcs, drastically different armor types requiring hard counters, flanking, less focus on resourcing, RPG elements etc, are all things that have evolved since Starcraft 1 (see Warcraft 3, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 1 and 2, homeworld, AOE series).
Starcraft 2 ads nothing to the formula. It is a rehashing of SC1. I played it, it feels like playing a flash game...nothing to it. I can destroy a tank with a group of machine guns, flanking enemies makes no difference, basically, SC has learned nothing in 10 years. It feels dumb. I will most definately not be playing competitively online, and will probably not buy it. I was just wondering if I'm the only one who feels this way.
And by the way, dont flame. I totally respect if you disagree, but dont be ignorant about it. Like I said, I am a seasoned patron of this genre, so this is a big deal to me.
-
Well, I think that's the whole point, a rehash of SC1 with better graphics, SC1 had developed a rather mature competitive scene, it would be rather disruptive or even detrimental to change stuff too much.
-
There would be no reason to buy sc2 if it followed the same formulas as newer games. That's what makes starcraft, starcraft.
-
Sometimes innovations is good, sometimes it isn't.
I personally was a huge fan of SOF2, and been looking for a similar game for so long, i don't care about BF vehicles, hate totally the huge maps, don't care about lvling to get weapons or perks, i liked a lot the simplistic game, probably not many do, but its the way i feel.
I think blizzard made the right choice staying true to saga, they can always create a new game to push some new ideas and "innovate", while SC2 should be as close as SC1 was just add better graphics, maybe tweak a little, but don't mess to much into what been probably the most successful RTS at least on pro gaming.
Overall, i think companies should stay true to their franchises, since audience most likely are looking for the same old thing they been playing. -
I agree with you completely. StarCraft 2 feels like StarCraft again, but in 3D. Like a lot of people, I was very excited when I first heard about it. But having played the Beta and seen the game in action, it's just nothing too spectacular. It's balanced and fun enough, I suppose, but it's not original in any way.
I see this whole thing as part of Bobby Kotick's "milk everything for sequels every year" plan. The idea of releasing SC2 as three separate games at an outrageous sixty bucks a pop just makes my blood boil. This is a game that might easily be worth $50. There's no way in hell I'm paying almost $200 for it, though.
And of course, then there's the "always connected to B.Net" DRM. I refuse to support that kind of crap, either, but that's another rant for another time. -
Yeah that's true. I do hope they will also offer second and third campain and expension-pack as an option. Well, if they can manage a 50-hours long campain with the 3 games it may be justified though
-
Hell NO THANKS.... Look what EA did to CNC4 they absolutely butchered the tiberium franchise by changing the game play.
-
Yes, CNC4 is really phail, no resource gathering, no unit cost, just keep on chunking out units, it feels like a first person shooter game in RTS form, good gracious SC2 didn't become something like that.
-
If Blizzard started messing around with the formula that made Starcraft so great, I wouldn't buy it, and I suspect many other wouldn't as well. Although I haven't played the sequel, I suspect I will really like it, because it offers some familiarity and promises fast and exciting gameplay.
-
I haven't played the beta much yet but what I have played, I feel much like the OP. I used to play RTS's a LOT 10-15 years ago, and Starcraft is what fueled that desire. If SC2 was a sequel released 2,3,4, heck even 5 years after the original, then ok, stick with a common formula.
But this is 12 YEARS later. And to charge $60 for an updated graphics engine is preposterous. But overall I'll reserve further comment until the full game ships.
To me it lacks creativity. They could have stuck with the Starcraft theme and universe but added some really cool features, and improved the animations. I mean, instead of flying units just hovering, have them fly in a pattern while idle, and the way the battlecruisers and other flying ships just turn on a dime seems ridiculous. Their turn rates should be part of the strategy too. Make a big ship act like a big ship, and smaller vehicles get the advantage of speed and/or maneuverability.
Look at Warcraft 3 over Warcraft 1 & 2. That was a significant difference, and how many people prefer Waracraft 1 or 2 over 3? Pretty much none.
Also, for those new to the SC universe, or very rusty like myself, will be at a huge disadvantage online since original SC players will just dominate from the get go.
I was expecting something new and innovative as well, something for other companies to try and outmatch. Starcraft spawned dozens of wannabe's but it was good for the industry. I find Dawn of War (first series), World in Conflict, and Company of Heroes leagues better than SC2 so far. They at least each offered something new and innovative that made it stand out from the crowd. -
I can't understand the "not wanting to mess with the formula", I think its a copout. If thats the way we always appraoched games, where would we be now? Blizzard has a reputation for being innovative..SC2 is a real let-down in that respect... -
thewinteringtree Notebook Consultant
Warcraft 3 is crap.
I hate RTS games acting like RPGs.
Other elements (more realistic animations, flanking, blabla) that affect gameplay, but not what kind of game it is, sure that would be nice.
All these games with innovation have something interesting about them, but do they create the same feeling of nostalgia like Starcraft that keeps people playing 10 years later? Too soon to tell, but I will say: probably not. -
Don't really like warcraft 3 ladder as well, the battles in WC3 are not fought mainly for control or to win, but to level up your hero. Personally, I think SC2 is a rather good sequel, changing too much sometimes is not a good thing, eg. CNC4, DoW 2.
-
I would outright disagree with the notion of a step backwards in gameplay. The sheer amount of opening line possibilities and unit patterns has clearly deepened, most pronounced so in the micro aspect of SC2.
I am so immersed in the study of the game I have pushed aside some feelings that I remember now with this thread that the game is lacking in that WOW something amazing and new and innovative aspect.
In alot of ways it seems SC2 was designed to intensify and perfect the competitive play of SC1 and in that regard I am more then happy with it, but it does seem to disregard major innovation and more eye candy for the mass consumer. -
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
A wise man once said
"If it A'int Broke Don't Fix It" -
-
I ___HATED___ WC3 multiplayer. It was more HTS (hero time strategy) than RTS. The custom maps were fun as hell, and that redeemed the whole multiplayer, but the rts portion of the game was garbage. Age of Mythology was FAR superior to that crap.
less hero units and more normal units = a better rts.
As to innovation, sometimes less is more, more 3d can actually take away from ones ability to manage things on screen. Do we go around decrying the lack of innovation in sedan shape design ? What about bike design?
Laptop design?
The basic form factor for these things has remained relatively constant, and that is NOT a bad thing, when something works you do not need to jettison the whole concept, it is a fallacy of the idea of constant innovation that if the wheel is not reinvented, there is a problem. Actually no, the wheel is actually the SUPERIOR choice for MANY designs, so keep it as it is, and improve what you can.
There is a great deal of added depth to the new starcraft 2 game, think of it as the second edition of the original, I loved the first, and love this iteration. -
I'm not one all too much for eye candy, but at least don't make the units 2D converted to 3D for crying out loud. It's 2010 for goodness sakes. For the billions of dollars Blizzard has, that's the best they can do?
Like I said before, a huge Battlecruiser turns on a dime. Air units start and stop like they're in a traffic jam, ground units move just like they did in Starcraft, in a jerky and pivoting fashion. There's no flow to the units. Why not just make an add-on to Starcraft then, seriously, save them millions of dollars on 3D units and stick with sprites.
Also, since I brought up Warcraft 3 initially, people missed the point entirely. How many people still play Warcraft 1 or 2? My guess is next to none, but many people still enjoy and play Warcraft 3. It made changes that were innovative and welcome at the time.
I guess all the great games out there should have never tried something new. We'd still be in 1980. Pac-Man anyone? -
Your idea of "progress" is limited to graphical design, motion physics, and added maneuvers like flanking and arcing. That is not all that is. Starcraft 2 is the most fun I have had in an rts since Age of Mythology. (I still miss my egyptian anubite armies.)
It is the kind of approach a typical fps gamer would advocate. More "realistic"
I want more fantastical depth like taking a few ghosts and sniping a bunch of units and turning the tide as opposed to the mundane added depth of flanking, or terrain defense bonuses/burdens. So boring, so realistic. -
thewinteringtree Notebook Consultant
What exactly did Warcraft 3 innovate on? Heroes? (This is a serious question by the way)
-
All of those RTS's that try to innovate end up over simplifying the RTS game play each and every time. killing off the base buildings, the resource mining, then the unit spawning, and throwing in cover systems. What your left with is a mindless game of clicking with no strategy or skill involved. Like WIC. I don't know why the game was so popular, but I beat it feeling as though I did nothing. There's no lurking behind enemy lines, taking out their resources and killing off bases. Some new RTS's are like this but lack any real depth or variety in their units that star craft offers. There's such a vast amount of strategies that can be employed in SC that it almost never feels repetitive, at least not to all of those people still playing SC1
-
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
I hated WC3 despite liking WC1 & WC2 soo very very much.
Hero units were just one of the things that ruined it, though one of the larger things for sure.
As much as I liked Starcraft I liked the WC universe more. I liked having ships on the water, and my blood rage and orc warriors.
But yeah Starcraft was great too, I really liked things like the Siege tanks and the Archons it just didnt have that same "feel" as its warcraft cousins. -
i feel exactly like the op
i loved SC when it came out but i just dont get the hype surrounding the new game especailly after seeing it in action.
i guess a lot of people are into it because of the nostalgia factor.
i love playing COH, DOW, DOW2, sins of a solar empire and ETW (not really an rts), and to me sc 2 just feels a little dated gameplay wise
but i guess if someone is looking for a classic rts, it doesnt get any better than this. -
-
I like the starcraft universe Sooooooooooooo much more than warcraft. Terrans representing man against a living swarm of mutant bugs with a hive mind and control and an advanced psionic race with advanced shields and warp tech against the backdrop of space or capitol ships and cloaking and mass armies and siege, dark templars slicing units to shreds and I loved the universe so much. It was imaginative, FAR AND AWAY greater than anything POSSIBLY achievable using the universal template of modern warfare. It is why as good as a game like company of heroes may be, it will never be as exciting to play for me.
The other time I got that feeling was the first time I played kotor and saw what bioware did with the universe of star wars and I realized there is an almost inexhaustible supply of story and content that could be fleshed out in the ancient star wars universe. It was a joy to be in. -
After this beta I'm considering cancelling my pre-order. It just doesn't interest me as much as I thought it would. -
COH was fantastic with a deep gameplay mechanic. But COH making SC look like crap, that's completely opinion. -
-
A game isn't strategic if it comes down to who can click the fastest and you're screwed if you queue up one wrong unit. -
Maybe I'm just getting old but SC2 doesn't interest me as much as SC or WC3 did, when I was in high school and undergrad.
-
Because starcraft and warcraft are not decision focused but micro focused. That's why in some comp matches, you can see even though the terran player uses flame thrower buggy to hardcounter the zergling mass, the zerg player with zerglings still wins because of micro.
-
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
Even if your not into the main game mode, I think just like WC3 that SC2 will have an excellent and fun custom game community. That alone is what kept me going back to WC3.
I have installed it a few times over in recent times just to go play some. Unfortunately the robust and hugely varied custom games I know and love seem to be all but gone the last 2 times I installed WC3, its only DOTA and a few others now.
So I look forward to the revival of all the crazy games using the SC2 interface/world. -
I was already playing some TD games and weird RPG custom maps in SC2, seems to have even more potential than the WC3 custom maps.
-
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
<3 TD
WC3 had more TD than every other TD (dedicated) game I have ever seen put together.
I also liked the Maul maps witch are basically TD, and the "escape from xxx" games
As well as other likes Hero Line Wars, many of the RPG's, and the super hero unit type games.
It was easy to play for 15 min in a TD game or donate several hours to one of the more elaborate RPG games. -
thewinteringtree Notebook Consultant
Why keep comparing SC2 with DOW2, COH and others? They are obviously different games with different mechanics. Sure, they're all RTS, but there is a big difference between all of them. It would suck if they all end up looking and playing the same way.
Also: SOASE is slow until you start amassing units. Then it becomes AWESOME. Entrenchment + Star Wars Requiem Mod + 10 players = 1 week of game time maybe more. -
Wouldn't say it's a step backwards, but it definitely isn't a step forward either. As much as I like blizzard, ever since their merge with activision they've been producing the same old crap with new sparklies (see: WoW xpacs, SC2... I can only hope diablo turns out better). There is no innovation and while a lot of old/hardcore SC fans would rather things stay the same, it's about time to move on. And yeah, it's probably going to be a click/macro fest just like the first.
They could have even done minor things to change the gameplay drastically... dynamic/destructible maps, basic strategical maneuvers (flanking arcs ect), anything. -
Well, every game has it's unique flavor, I guess SC2 just wants to retain it's flavor. If you want a full fledged military simulation with morale, stamina, flanking etc there's always the total war series.
-
I've played SC2 and found the same thing, but consider this OP, it's not Starcraft - it's the entire RTS genre: it's becoming stale as a gaming platform. Consider that all of what you mention as lacking are battlefield enhancements towards full simulation: micro-management, strategic position, individual, specific attributes for units. The next natural progression in that order is further-micro management which inevitably requires player-controlled units. Enter the modern MMOFPSRTS etc. hybrid.
I would argue that SC2 and really most RTSs no longer interest me anymore like SC did because newer "full-scale battle simulation" games such as Battlefield 2 have literally spoiled us with RTS elements, FPS, and a touch of MMO, so going back to a pure RTS is a one-dimensional step backwards for the entire genre. Granted many hybrid games drastically water-down one component or the other. But consider when such a game comes out that finally does justice well enough that an RTS is simply sub-classed by an MMOFPSRTS. -
what we really need is a good turn-based startegy game
now thats a genre i truly miss. -
Well, I haven't played the beta. But when I asked a friend 'how is SC2?', he replied 'is like playing SC in high definition'. And for that I got some mixed feelings. I feel like the OP and a few others: disappointed for us waiting 12 years and getting almost a graphical enhancement only.
Personally I don't think it is a step backwards, and incorporating successful elements of other RTS (like Relic's RTS) would have been an excess killing the (future) franchise. Nevertheless I'd have expected from Blizzard, after waiting at least 4 years of development, to come up with more innovation.
My 2 cents.
Off-topic: I wasn't aware how many people didn't like the Hero units in WC3. Personally I liked it a lot since (finally) the main characters were able to do MAIN stuff in the game when compared to SC (behind the lines or the enemy kills it and its game over...). -
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
I think RUSE is turn based, I do not remember only played the demo for like 5 minutes
-
-
Either way, alot of people have been waiting for this game for 10 yrs. I should go reserve it
-
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
Here is a bit about RUSE
width='640' height="385">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M_yWnSaDPa4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385">
Looks like you do not have to micro the units so it wont be as much of a "clickfest"
width='640' height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tbZDBMQQ0HM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tbZDBMQQ0HM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="385"></embed></object>Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2015 -
thewinteringtree Notebook Consultant
RUSE sounds pretty awesome. I've been looking forward to it. We'll have to wait and see though.
The only TBS I still play occasionally is GalCiv2. -
im also looking into ruse but it might have that draconian ubi drm. in which case its gonna be another pass.
this is my most anticipated game this year:
Elemental - War of Magic
the spiritual heir of probably mu most favorite game - master of magic -
I also hated the hero units in WC3. I used to play WC2 online all the time on IGZ and I loved massing units and attacking over open fields. WC3 had an effective unit cap around what, 60? WC2 was 300, SC was 200.
So after beating WC3 and TFT I stopped playing RTS games for a while... until Rome: Total War came out. If you want a realistic RTS game (more accurately turn-based operational/strategic and real time tactics), Napoleon and Rome Total War are the way to go.
In WiC, I couldn't understand how my M1 Abrams were losing to units that in real life, they'd annihilate. So I stopped playing that.
While realism is nice and all, sometimes it's boring in a video game. Genres like FPSs and racing sims often strive for realism, but it's the arcade-feeling ones that have the best success. Sure you have games like GTR, Microsoft Flight Sim, America's Army, and others that have some pretty good followings, but they're blown out of the water in sales by Need for speed, Modern knifefare 2, and others.
In a videogame, you don't really NEED realism... what you need is a deep, balanced, and fun game. -
-
thewinteringtree Notebook Consultant
I'd love to try Empire Total War, but the setting doesn't interesting me.
-
Starcraft 2: a step backwards in gameplay?
Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by classic77, May 10, 2010.