|
On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation.
Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game.
That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it.
That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it.
So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look.
|
On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look.
A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1.
|
On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1.
for the better ? D3 was a pointless grind and left out a big part of the original diablo game that was choices to make your char... they oversimplified the game to the point that its a mindless grind to get better and better gear , and oh yeah you have RMAH woot! lets go grind moar bc there is no point in making another barb if i have one already...
SC2 is a good game , and as a casual goldie i enjoy it , i can see how someone who played BW at some kind of level misses things from the original (siege lines , lurkers , positional play) but SC2 is right now a really good RTS , I mean , after 2 years i still play it (less than at the beginning , but still) and is not shelved like most of the other games i buy.
HotS is looking good , cant wait to see GSL on it as it will give some positional things , ive seen some GSTL games using Swarm hosts and they looked innovative and fresh , ZvP is Lightyears ahead of what it is in WoL from an spectator perspective.
this will come out for the better.
|
On March 02 2013 04:58 nanaoei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:56 FFW_Rude wrote:On March 01 2013 18:55 GizmoPT wrote:On March 01 2013 18:51 FFW_Rude wrote:
They could also redo another time the Bnet interface. I HATE HotS interface. I have to close 3menus (once with the X top right and then with the arrow top left) in order to get where i want. It's HORRIBLE !
But they won't do it...
Also people speaks of Lost Viking remake... Why would you remake lost vikings when you can remake... ROCK'N ROLL FUCKING RACING ! hotkeys Yeah... About that... (You have to know they exists (like the patrol command ingame. If you don't know that it exists... Well...)) And you cannot all touch with hotkeys. The old interface was much better. But it's off topic ^^ you gotta' remember that the game is tuned to casual gamers as well. the simplified commands in your command hub come stock and there's an option in gameplay or something that allows you to turn off the 'simple command card' so you have the old UI again. please educate yourself before raising a pitchfork!
I'm a casual player and a lot of people don't even go to the option menu while playing. For exemple i got two friends asking me how i had animated portraits when clicking a unit. Because they don't go into option.
Don't need to be condescedent. I'm not raising a pitchfork. I state my opinion. Yes you can have pickles in your sandwish. But if you don't know that. Will you ask for pickles in it ? Especially when there is nowhere to be found that the seller have some (but it's written in a 1pt font at the end of the menu) ? I don't.
Maybe we take it to PM ?
|
On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1.
LOL are you kidding me? Please, tell me what all these changes for the better supposedly were.
|
On March 02 2013 07:48 Meatloaf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1. for the better ? D3 was a pointless grind and left out a big part of the original diablo game that was choices to make your char... they oversimplified the game to the point that its a mindless grind to get better and better gear , and oh yeah you have RMAH woot! lets go grind moar bc there is no point in making another barb if i have one already...
They simplified and streamlined many things, but added new choices. The actual battles for example are much more tactical compared to D2. I think it is not justified to call the game oversimplified.
|
On March 11 2013 20:23 GrapeApe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1. LOL are you kidding me? Please, tell me what all these changes for the better supposedly were.
everyone class has its own resource, cd on potions so you no longer can spam. at launch inferno was actually hard and very enjoyable (still is now that you have monster power). Sure Diablo3 have some flaws but here is the important thing with every patch that game gets better and better. And to all who says Diablo3 is a grind feast, well so is Diablo2 and 1 what did you expect
|
On March 02 2013 04:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:56 Shakattak wrote:On March 01 2013 21:51 KwarK wrote:
If you delete bw from history and sc2 happens then the company that made it have done something remarkable and displayed incredible vision and creativity. I'm not saying sc2 is bad. I'm saying that it pushed no boundaries. Blizzard weren't just competent, they were revolutionary. Nothing about any of their recent work is. How would you suggest that they push the boundaries? What would you have liked? I'm not old Blizzard? I don't need to know how to revolutionise gaming to identify that their earlier work did revolutionise gaming and their later work did not.
Blizzard was never revolutionary where the hell is this even coming from. Blizzard was always a company that took major concepts from other titles and polished them to near-perfect status. Their most revolutionary title was D1 by far and the inclusion of a user-friendly, free multiplayer platform. I never expect Blizzard to be revolutionary because that's just not what they do, which is to be even more expected considering they've had no new IP for years.
|
On March 11 2013 20:23 GrapeApe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1. LOL are you kidding me? Please, tell me what all these changes for the better supposedly were.
No skilltrees, game design experts called it a huge leap. Sirlin did a write up; http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/5/3/diablo-3s-ability-system.html
|
On March 11 2013 20:54 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:48 Meatloaf wrote:On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1. for the better ? D3 was a pointless grind and left out a big part of the original diablo game that was choices to make your char... they oversimplified the game to the point that its a mindless grind to get better and better gear , and oh yeah you have RMAH woot! lets go grind moar bc there is no point in making another barb if i have one already... They simplified and streamlined many things, but added new choices. The actual battles for example are much more tactical compared to D2. I think it is not justified to call the game oversimplified. Does it have that promised PvP already? Yeah, no, thought so.
Uninstalled after a month, boring, dull, bad game, in comparison I still enjoy PoE, D II, and TL II to some extent.
|
On March 11 2013 22:07 PVJ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 20:54 [F_]aths wrote:On March 02 2013 07:48 Meatloaf wrote:On March 02 2013 07:26 aksfjh wrote:On March 02 2013 07:11 NicolBolas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:04 scrdmnttr wrote:
It's completely true. The BW zealots (not the unit >_>) might hate this, but SC2 is merely BW made with modern technology.
It is also true that there is vast opportunities for innovation, and changing units and tacking on macro features is not innovation. Yes, there "is vast opportunities for innovation". But if they did that... it wouldn't be like SC1 in any way. It would probably use a different resource collection model, with different play dynamics, and in all ways be a different game. That's the difference between having an audience and not having one. WC3 was innovative in many ways. And look how many SC1 players did not play it. That taught Blizzard a lesson: change is bad. Change means fewer sales. Change means your audience won't play it. So if you want to blame someone for the lack of innovation in SC2, you know where to look. A better example, look at D3. It was change, and a lot of it for the better. Reasonable people loved it, as did many newcomers to the series, but "fans" hated it because it wasn't D2.1. for the better ? D3 was a pointless grind and left out a big part of the original diablo game that was choices to make your char... they oversimplified the game to the point that its a mindless grind to get better and better gear , and oh yeah you have RMAH woot! lets go grind moar bc there is no point in making another barb if i have one already... They simplified and streamlined many things, but added new choices. The actual battles for example are much more tactical compared to D2. I think it is not justified to call the game oversimplified. Does it have that promised PvP already? Yeah, no, thought so. Uninstalled after a month, boring, dull, bad game, in comparison I still enjoy PoE, D II, and TL II to some extent.
How is that related to the argument of the game being oversimplified? Note that I'm not saying it isn't and I'm also not saying Blizz fulfilled their promises, I just don't see how this statement is relevant to the current discussion.
|
It will be exciting either way!
|
On February 27 2013 18:40 ShadeR wrote:
Probably LAN.
HA! This won the thread.
My money is on all-stars --or a realy good SC2 map.
|
well my heart says Wc4
My head says AllStars
hop my heart wil win this battle !!
|
|
|
so, apparently its a 2nd new game :o didnt even know that they work on something else beside Titan
![[image loading]](http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2013/march/pardoNewGame.png)
|
Project Blackstone has not published its last entries yet. My bet is on something which has to do with Project Blackstone.
|
|
|
Starcraft Phoenix!! cause Starcraft Ghost was dead and now it comes back from the ashes!!
|
I'm pretty sure it's All Stars.
A good amount of HotS feels like they're just showing off how smooth and snappy their MOBA engine would be, since the campaign is very WC3-ish... a hero-rts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
