|
I don't see a difference in the improvement from D1 to D2 and SC1 to SC2.
Just improve on what's good already. I think SC2 did that just fine.
You are saying D2 was revolutionary etc.. but to me it's the same damn game as the first. You just add new dungeon tilesets. O cool, ice jungle desert. Some new abilities... an aura or two, some new spells etc.
SC2 feels more or less the same way. It's not so much about innovation as it is about just doing more of what made BW good. Which was.... uh.... well, lotsa things I guess. Then add in the convenience of MBS (I fuckn love MBS!)
And if you say shit like Muta micro was what made BW good, go kill yourself you first level noob. It's moments like Snow vs Flash that make BW awesome.
|
On June 10 2010 06:03 SuperJongMan wrote:
I don't see a difference in the improvement from D1 to D2 and SC1 to SC2.
Just improve on what's good already. I think SC2 did that just fine.
You are saying D2 was revolutionary etc.. but to me it's the same damn game as the first. You just add new dungeon tilesets. O cool, ice jungle desert. Some new abilities... an aura or two, some new spells etc.
SC2 feels more or less the same way. It's not so much about innovation as it is about just doing more of what made BW good. Which was.... uh.... well, lotsa things I guess. Then add in the convenience of MBS (I fuckn love MBS!)
And if you say shit like Muta micro was what made BW good, go kill yourself you first level noob. It's moments like Snow vs Flash that make BW awesome.
Wut? I shat my pants the first time I saw July win with pure mutas from 2 hatch.
|
I shat myself the first time I saw July win with 16 drones too. 16 fuckn drones! That's crazy.
I guess what I'm saying is BW is pretty well balanced and there is a constant evolving mind game between the top players which makes it still worth watching today. It's not about cute micro tricks anymore. They are a neccesity in today's games.
And that this same, or similar, mind game is very present in SC2.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
Lets all hate on SC2, all the cool kids are doing it.
While I believe that Bnet 2.0 still needs work SC2 itself is a fun, good looking game that is remarkably well balanced considering it has only been in beta.
|
The "anybody can beat the top pros" argument is pretty BS, the "top pros" are winning pretty much every single tournament despite MBS.
I think the ladder is a bigger change to the learning curve than the game itself. In BW when you first got onto iccup you are a D, but the people who can actually stay at D are much much better than you, so you lose a lot.
In SC2 you play your placement matches and then start playing people around your skill level, so you don't lose as much at the beginning, leading people to blame it on the game when actually it's the ladder.
|
On June 10 2010 06:24 SuperJongMan wrote:
I shat myself the first time I saw July win with 16 drones too. 16 fuckn drones! That's crazy.
I guess what I'm saying is BW is pretty well balanced and there is a constant evolving mind game between the top players which makes it still worth watching today. It's not about cute micro tricks anymore. They are a neccesity in today's games.
And that this same, or similar, mind game is very present in SC2.
Of course.... mind games exist in every single multiplayer game. But mind games also lend itself to luck too.
|
I enjoy SC2 beacuse its a good RTS with good graphics, good mechanics, good sounds and good UI.
Its not Broodwar, but its a good RTS. Way above any other RTS title on the market.
Hopefully through the years with right patching and added units, it can become a great game.
Battle.net 2.0 however is utter crap and is holding this game down, ALOT.
Innovation doesn't always equal good by the way.
Blizzard saw how popular and good SC:BW became and that is why they decided to not touch the core mechanics of that game, just built upon it.
They are pretty smart in my eyes.
Also, WoW didn't really innovate at all - what they did was refine, polish and made things user friendly - this was not a case in previous mmos to WoW - they were extremely hardcore and "hard" to play/figure out. WoW made everything intuitive and easy to do with HIGH design quality.
|
Well, I find mindgames or whatever in BW to be superior to every other multiplayer game I've played SC2 is the only one that even compares to this level of depth from my experiences as a gamer.
|
On June 10 2010 04:13 Misrah wrote:
The game is a shiny new starcraft that everyone and their mother can play at diamond league in.
Everyone will like it because of these reasons:
1. Nostalgia factor (for the non hardcore player)
2. New game factor
3. Shiny new graphics
4. Easy to play
5. Easy to master
So your 100% correct. there is no innovation. Just a new skin on an old game- with a few new doodads that make it easy for noobs to play.
I completely agree with this. The real question is if this is a formula that can last, or one that will be adored by pros (in the long run, not just the first few months of beta + 6 months of release), since now that there is less of a 'skill difference' between pros and casuals thanks to smartcasting, automining and mbs.
|
Being really cheesy is fun lol. i remember the day before beta ended my cousin lend me sc2 beta account and i tried it out for the first time. I tried zerg because i am a skilless cheesy noobs. First game i went 3 hatch before pool and went mass speedlings and owned so hard lol. and for the next 10 games or so thats all i did and won like half of them. Man that shit owns hardcore if they dont rush you.
|
On June 10 2010 06:03 SuperJongMan wrote:
I don't see a difference in the improvement from D1 to D2 and SC1 to SC2.
Just improve on what's good already. I think SC2 did that just fine.
You are saying D2 was revolutionary etc.. but to me it's the same damn game as the first. You just add new dungeon tilesets. O cool, ice jungle desert. Some new abilities... an aura or two, some new spells etc.
SC2 feels more or less the same way. It's not so much about innovation as it is about just doing more of what made BW good. Which was.... uh.... well, lotsa things I guess. Then add in the convenience of MBS (I fuckn love MBS!)
And if you say shit like Muta micro was what made BW good, go kill yourself you first level noob. It's moments like Snow vs Flash that make BW awesome.
The improvements from D1 to D2 are plenty. Real classes with three unique skill trees each (allowing for thousands of character builds, each making the playthrough itself different). Gems, runes, and runewords. Sockets in equipment to put these in. Item sets that have bonuses depending on how many pieces you're wearing. Waypoints to more easily move around / save progress. The Horadric cube and a ridiculous number of recipes for items using it. I'm sure I'm forgetting things here, but the games play completely differently despite having the same overall concept.
And obviously it's not about how 'cool' the micro is. It's about the idea that you can overcome a potentially bad situation (in this case, marines eating mutas when they engage normally) and turn it into an advantageous one. I don't care if it's standard, either. Nearly every TvZ has constant and interesting micro on both sides - battles that remain relevant even into the extreme late game. The clashes are not just fun to watch - they're meaningful. Where in SC2 beyond super early rushes does this kind of thing happen?
On June 10 2010 08:09 SuperJongMan wrote:
Well, I find mindgames or whatever in BW to be superior to every other multiplayer game I've played SC2 is the only one that even compares to this level of depth from my experiences as a gamer.
Actually, mindgames in games where information is even more scarce, like pokemon for instance, far exceed anything in BW. There's much more of a buffer for a player with great mechanics using strong build orders and good unit combinations to overcome mindgames in BW than in games where the emphasis is placed on making 'good' guesses and metagaming. Matches like Snow vs Flash really are the exception rather than the rule. It's cool to see, but you don't want it to happen in every game.
|
From what I've seen what Starcraft did was simplify other RTS games which had way too many units, races and gimmicks to be viable and make the good bits better. There were other, much more complex RTS games before it which were not competitively viable.
I'm not an expert, of course, but you're honestly just looking for a reason to hate the game now. You're looking at things from an obviously Brood War-slanted view. Every TvZ has constant and interesting micro on both sides? Maybe all of them that you remember. But as a newer Starcraft fan, I remember a lot of BO wins, sunken busts, fail muta harass into loss, fail muta defend into loss...
It's not exactly fair to compare Flash versus Jaedong against Platinum John and Silver. If every game generated as many nerdchills as TLO vs Nazgul, what would you be saying? But they don't, because TLO isn't Flash and Nazgul isn't whichever Protoss is doing least badly these days. You have to sift through the bad games to find the good, and really Brood War is the same. Few proleague matches have recommended games these days.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2010 08:44 QibingZero wrote:
The improvements from D1 to D2 are plenty. Real classes with three unique skill trees each (allowing for thousands of character builds, each making the playthrough itself different). Gems, runes, and runewords. Sockets in equipment to put these in. Item sets that have bonuses depending on how many pieces you're wearing. Waypoints to more easily move around / save progress. The Horadric cube and a ridiculous number of recipes for items using it. I'm sure I'm forgetting things here, but the games play completely differently despite having the same overall concept.
Strictly speaking, waypoints exist in concept in Diablo 1 as well, it's just that they aren't named such. As you enter new areas, entrances to them from Tristram open up.
|
i dont like sc2 nor do i like bnet 2.0, but i might still play it because the community will be large and my friends will be playing it.
i agree, gameplay doesnt stand up to bw at all and the only point of ciricism that i could force myself to accept is that it is only the first part, while sc itself got a lot more dynamic with the release of its expansion, broodwar. but that shouldnt be a free pass on taking steps back in gameplay and to rely on expansions to make it into a good game instead of making it into a good game from the start and improve on it even more once the expansions get released.
bnet 2.0 is a pretty interface, just like the game itself is much more watchable than bw for its graphics (as a player as well as spectator), but lost just too much of the old functionality.
sc2 isnt worth to be seen as anything other than mediocre at this point, but everyone will be playing it, not just the bw community, the wc3 community, but players from all sorts of places and games and even new ones. that's the only good point it has right now.
|
On June 10 2010 05:44 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
to me sc2 doesnt have the competetive fire that sc:bw had
the learning curve made scbw fun. it made me want to play more, to get better
scbw lead me to TL where i met some amazing people.. and spent a fuckton of time
sc2 .. is more akin to cnc for me
took me a WEEK to learn. a week to hit platinum 1900.
then it got boring. i had to go back to scbw :/
You sound like you are suprised that it only took a week to learn. If you were good at scbw thats what you shoul've expected from sc2.
As for game being interesting/boring... well. I think the foundations are there now all we need is time for the game to mature. I know all of you heard this a thousand times before but starcraft wasn't as awesome the day it came out as it was 5 years after.
So, someone, answer me this: Is there any reason not to expect the same from sc2 with 2 expansions set in stone?
|
You guys keep thinking you can just "get into" sc2 and compete? You have to be good, former B player will always be better than former C player even if C player has a 2 months head start. Eventually C player might pull up and become a challenge but initially better mechanics will always win if you know the builds.
|
It's not a very special game to be honest, a bit dull but still has that basic Starcraft gameplay which makes it good enough. First Blizzard game I'll be passing on though. Waiting 11 years and getting this was incredibly anti-climatic.
Again, not a bad game -- just a really, really dull sequel. I think people are just hyped for getting into a fresh competitive scene and trying their hand on it, rather then recognizing this as a the decade long sequel the world has been waiting for. most casual competitive players I know were extremely disappointed when I let them play the beta. And yeah a lot of people say it's more like CnC now with all the new stuff and unit designs, not surprising as Browder was a CnC designer before hand.
|
5003 Posts
Actually, mindgames in games where information is even more scarce, like pokemon for instance, far exceed anything in BW.
Mindgames in Pokemon are just blind luck, because there is so little information and not much going on. Mindgames in Broodwar are at least more interesting, in that surprise isn't just "Garchomp used Toxic", but it's something you can adjust based on information, which you can't in Pokemon. That's why Pokemon is a terrible, terrible game, despite the "mind games" it has.
|
it doesnt really innovate any more than 99% of FPS games. lack of innovation isnt necessarily bad at all. The whole "innovation in game design" mantra came from some fucking marketing terms that Nintendo cooked up back in 2004/2005 to hype the DS. Flash forward 5 years and a game cant be "great" unless it innovates in some way. I dont want to say that innovation is overrated in videogames, but solid execution of already established principles is probably pretty underrated.
|
Its too much like BW to be innovative
not enough like BW to be truly great
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
