EPTStarCraft 2 Going Free-to-Play on November 14 - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Xsizter
1 Post
| ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 11 2017 21:06 207aicila wrote: Nice argument, just because a dead genre hasn't seen any stellar releases recently that means that SC2 is comparable to the genre at its peak 15-20 years ago. [Insert a bunch of laughing emojis with tears in their eyes here] There has been tons of releases, all of them outside of Blizzard's titles have completely floundered. That's why it's a dead genre. But please, go on and tell us why you think Age of Mythology, CnC Generals, and The Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring were better than SC2. Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history. | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On November 12 2017 09:56 lestye wrote: Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history. Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2. The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction. Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted. None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL). Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS. Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games. | ||
|
starkiller123
United States4029 Posts
On November 12 2017 11:18 207aicila wrote: Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2. The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction. Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted. None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL). Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS. Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games. what a surprise, a condescending post from aicila? never happens | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 12 2017 11:18 207aicila wrote: Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2. The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction. Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted. None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL). Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS. Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games. I guess Electronic Arts, Sega, and Microsoft don't have any market relevance? Small indie publishers, there's no way for those company to get hype for those games. Oh please, go on and talk about how awesome and competitive Dawn of War: Dark Crusade was. Go on. Tell me how the awesome race and unit design is so amazing. I'd love to hear your thoughts on design on a true gem of an RTS. It's funny you criticize SC2 Battle.net, that's completely valid, but like I said, compare it Dawn of War and Command and Conquer's online service, and you see why I think your standards are way out of whack. Go on, I want to hear you talk about all those exciting Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War 1 custom games you played . Convince me that those games use of the Gamespy Arcade and their custom games were way better than SC2s. SC2s sure did suck, it was just embarassing when we compare it to the Red Alert 3, Dawn of War 3, and Grey Goo editor. And don't give me that crap about how there was no little no hype, none of those games are 9s or 10s that fell under the radar. Their "design" wasn't good enough to create any longevity in the scene, that's why they fell through. Your Justin Bieber analogy makes no fucking sense when the multiplayer games we're talking about have no community, no scene, because they've been rejected. And that is the only demonstration that counts. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16289 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
The same is true for Diablo 3. A lot of people really hated it, but its also probably one of the "top 3" in its genre because of how many people loved Diablo 2. And it does share many of the same, basic mechanics. But the point is it doesn't necessarily need to be a great game for it to do well, it can just as easily perform well due to the previous game's popularity. People tend to buy or view "the next in the series" in many different markets, whether its popular video games, movies, or iPhones. Its particularly egregious in the case of iPhones...people are fanatical about getting the latest model, even if for all intents and purposes it doesn't do anything different from the previous model. If the original command and conquer games were as exciting, who knows, maybe the same thing would have happened with C&C RA3? They certainly would have invested much more money into developing a multiplayer service that is as good as battle.net. That's the other thing, most developers don't really expect their games to become incredible multiplayer experiences, its generally focused on single player, and the multiplayer aspect is secondary. So its not really fair to compare battle.net to gamespy arcade. With SC2, they expected a huge playerbase to be interested in multiplayer. In fact, if anything, they would have made the singleplayer experience secondary to that. Remember SC:BW's mutliplayer success was mostly accidental. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 12 2017 16:05 radscorpion9 wrote: Its actually likely that, because SC:BW had such a large following, SC2 was destined to do well and that its actual game mechanics don't play as large a role in its popularity as people think. It is similar enough that people view it as a natural continuation of the starcraft legacy. As long as it gets those core mechanics right, I think its quite hard for it to fail. But then the question is, can you put SC2 into the "top 3" based only on those core mechanics, assuming everything else is poorly done (assuming you're not judging top 3 by popularity alone)? The same is true for Diablo 3. A lot of people really hated it, but its also probably one of the "top 3" in its genre because of how many people loved Diablo 2. And it does share many of the same, basic mechanics. But the point is it doesn't necessarily need to be a great game for it to do well, it can just as easily perform well due to the previous game's popularity. People tend to buy or view "the next in the series" in many different markets, whether its popular video games, movies, or iPhones. Its particularly egregious in the case of iPhones...people are fanatical about getting the latest model, even if for all intents and purposes it doesn't do anything different from the previous model. If the original command and conquer games were as exciting, who knows, maybe the same thing would have happened with C&C RA3? They certainly would have invested much more money into developing a multiplayer service that is as good as battle.net. That's the other thing, most developers don't really expect their games to become incredible multiplayer experiences, its generally focused on single player, and the multiplayer aspect is secondary. So its not really fair to compare battle.net to gamespy arcade. With SC2, they expected a huge playerbase to be interested in multiplayer. In fact, if anything, they would have made the singleplayer experience secondary to that. Remember SC:BW's mutliplayer success was mostly accidental. By that logic, no sequel would EVER fail. Sequels bomb all the time. Hell, that's why other franchises in the genre have trouble being made, they don't sell, in spite of the successful predecessors, because they're not good. We're still here 7 years later. I think SC2 did better than most sequels ever do. It's not like SC2 had an amazing opening week and then bombed the fuck out the next week like Street Fighter V or Battleborn, which could not sell its first shipment. Same thing with shitty movie sequels, yeah, a shitty movie sequel will do better the opening week, but then plummet right aftewards. And how is that not fair? The hottest selling game in that genre has a feature that has made it incredibly acclaimed, why wouldnt you expect to even come close to such a game? SC:BW's multiplayer was "accidental", but they still shipped a powerful custom editor with the game, meanwhile 20 years later, I cant think of another RTS game that ships with a decent editor outside of Blizzard. Also, most of these single player games aren't anything exciting either, a good chunk of em just have standard skirmish conditions and cutscene triggers and call it a day. I think Dawn of War....2? I wanna say, the campaign was essentially all skirmish maps with cutscenes before and after. I digress, there is certainly a ton to critique about SC2, its not a perfect game, its still a great game, this bitching about "fundamental design problem" is way overblown. That's why I made the comparison to other RTS games, you guys are making it out SC2 to be worse than Petroglyph shovelware, when there's a lot of great stuff to it. | ||
|
SkelA
Macedonia13017 Posts
| ||
|
Chris_Havoc
United States589 Posts
On November 12 2017 19:21 SkelA wrote: I have bought first 2 expansions. Will i get Lotv campaign for free after 14 nov? No. | ||
|
IIEclipseII
Germany155 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On November 12 2017 11:18 207aicila wrote: Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games. This post reads like a bad college newspaper review of a popular album the editorial staff has decided they're too good for. | ||
|
beheamothsc
19 Posts
what do you get for free 1 campaign 2 m,ultiplayer 3 3 coop commanders 4 arcade ??? not sure if this is free not read too much into it from the video announcement but isnt sc2 already kinda free with the starter edition??? So For me, i would have a free experience cos all i ever do is hit multiplayer, ranked, play . . .all day. For MOST who get this game on the free stick they will get the game, realise its no joke and never play again, or keep at it . . . but heres the thing 1. im going to put this on the line right now and open with this. blizz will make another 3 expansions for sc2. You will all pay for this 2. the new comers may buy all the coop commanders, thats 2.49 a time. MOST people already with the game dont care too much abouyt this . . . but 500000, no hard cores might . . .you see the business here? 3. after they do the campaign, theyll get the others, im sure they are not free and may be £10 4. Announcers . . .theyll get hem, 5. Any additional new stuff AND may get them to try heros to play as these characters you suddenly develop a crush over. its a smart move by blizzz this as the mainstayers, the peoiple of this website, nothings really going to change, but blizzard will tap into at least another 250000 people im guessing at to spend at least 1 in game purchase. Nobody is doing that right now, i got the warchest but i have paid for nothing other than a few of the zerg coop commanders, just because i love and support the company. I am kinda mad tho that back in the real days you have to but a different account for every region, which i did, and then went to get more accounts . . . of which they merged . . .sigh . . .oh well i cant wait to make that free accnt! | ||
|
Isualin
Turkey1903 Posts
On November 12 2017 21:35 beheamothsc wrote: SC2 is the greatest game RTS (or for me THE best game ever released). I welcome this free to play idea as if you read between all of the lines its a money making great idea. I think you are vastly overestimating the number of players this f2p move will bring. I love sc2 and played/watched it since beta, but this is an "old" game already, going f2p might attract some people but it is a brutal game. I don't think this will really help the player base in the long term. And no, there won't be 3 expansions lol :D Maybe you meant DLCs like Nova Covert Ops? | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
I'm sure some totally new people will check it out, maybe for custom maps if that's also free, but the ones most likely to stick around long term are the ones primed to already like it. It does help that SC2 is basically the only active RTS, so anyone interested in the genre will at some point be open to trying it. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 12 2017 20:18 Heyoka wrote: This post reads like a bad college newspaper review of a popular album the editorial staff has decided they're too good for. https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-music-6-8-1819569318 | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16289 Posts
On November 12 2017 16:48 lestye wrote: SC:BW's multiplayer was "accidental", but they still shipped a powerful custom editor with the game, meanwhile 20 years later, I cant think of another RTS game that ships with a decent editor outside of Blizzard. Also, most of these single player games aren't anything exciting either, a good chunk of em just have standard skirmish conditions and cutscene triggers and call it a day. SC:BW's multiplayer and SC pre-BW multiplayer were not "accidental". which is why they shipped additional multiplayer units like the Lurker, Dark Templar and Medic that radically changed the game just 6 months after the initial SC1 was released in March of 1998. that is also why they kept on patching and balancing the game post release... because multiplayer was hardly accidental... ITERATION.. ITERATION.. ITERATION. Since Day 1 Blizzard states their unparalleled quality comes from continuous iteration of their product. Developing a digital interactive experience is a CRAFT.. and iteration makes excellence possible. iteration is a necessary but insufficient condition for excellence. so ya , SC1 multiplayer was no accident. it was the result of months and months of constant iteration both before and after the initial game was released. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 13 2017 20:29 Zaros wrote: It all depend on Blizzard how many people are gonna come with F2P, are they going to go all out with the advertisement start paying the popular streamers to play SC2 etc or are they just gonna leave it on the youtube channel and battle.net starcraft area (which is going to bring hardly anyone.) Thats why I recommended for them to finally do some cross promotion, like WoW + Hearthstone, Hearthstone + HOTS, HOTS + WoW, Overwatch + HOTS, Diablo + HOTS, etc. SC2 is the only game that didnt get any cross promotion, if they can do something like, level a commander to 5, you get 5 packs or something in Hearthstone, thatd be significant, or an exclusive skin. | ||
| ||
