34 replies to this topic

[Anubis]

I will start this thread with a warning - spoiler - if you want to have the few surprises that the game can offer ( if they can be called like that ) stop reading. Also this whole thread is MY OPINION so don't feel offended. I will continue by adding that SC was my favorite game for about 6 years ( 99-05 ) and it's still being one of my favorite games ever (under the limitation of it's age ofc). I am one of the people who were not 'lucky' enough to have a WoW account and enter the beta. Tbh lucky me. Why? well because i would pay a monthly fee for a shity opportunity. I got the beta in a crackd version. I can only play 4 maps against a bit limited AI, but this doesn't count to what i have to say about the game. Yes i played all 3 races, yes i tested all the beta has to offer for 2 days.
For about 8 months i'm in a game design class organized by ubisoft, so i will start with game mechanics and gameplay features. Those that have played the first game will feel like they play it again in better graphics. Those that didn't play the first ... you will play the same thing with this one so don't worry. You didn't lose a thing. A game 'gameplay' is formed of 2 parts - core gameplay and gameplay features. The core gameplay is the center of the game. The core features ( number of sides, supply/resource style stuff like this ). The gameplay features are the uniq little mechanisms that make each faction uniq as well as the small features arround the core parts. SC2 changes nothing in terms of core gameplay. And when i say nothing i mean NOTHING. But just to make sure i make my point here is everything that is new about the game ( and neither one of this is under the category of core features ) :

- yellow minerals - they give 8 minerals per drop, instead of 5 that a normal field gives.
- Xel'naga watch tower - once under control it reveals a large area arround it.
- LOS blocker grass ( i dunno how else to call it ) basicly this doodad block los behind it.
- blocks of stone that can be destroyed - they ussualy cover back entrances and yellow mineral fields.
- map feature - all maps have starting location with only one free entrance ramp and some have a back door blocked by large stone blocks.
- units on lower ground do not have los on higher ground - basicly if a siege tank attacks from a cliff you cannot see it ( think of RA3 ).
- cliff walker/jumper units - terran reaper and protoss collosus can jump over 1 level cliffs.

This is all that is new in SC2 compaired to sc1 in terms of non-faction mechanics. WOW! Amazing isn't it.
Now for the factions. If someone feels that replacing some units with other units is enough to call it a sequel then hell ... imo gaming industrie can just go to hell already. So let's begin:

Protoss - New mechanics:

- warp in - probably one of the only interesting things in the game.
- mothership - basicly an oversized arbiter limited to just 1 per player. And yes it is the same as an arbiter, only larger and with greater damage. It's abillites are the exact same the arbiter had - The vortex abillity is the same as the stasys field - units inside are imune to damage but also cannot attack. recall - same shit as before and stealth aura. So this isn't something new after all.
- nexus chrono abillity - can be cast over a structure and it increases that structure production speed for a few seconds.

Terran - New mechanics:

- planetary fortress - upgrade for the CC - a large defensive structure - sucks ass big time.
- orbital relay - another upg for the CC - an advanced comsat station that can scan and call in 2 additional abillites.
- supply depots can now be lowered underground so units can cross over.
- defenses can be recycled for resources.
- radar tower - shows enemy troops inside the fog of war in a radius around it.

Zerg - New mechanics:

- spine crawler/spore crawler - new defenses can now move around, but suffer outside creep.
- queen - is now an almost hero unit that has a defense role - it creates creep, larvas and heals units/buildings.
- almost all units can now burrow.
- some units can move while burrowed.
- all units move faster on creep.

As you can see the differences in terms of mechanics from SC1 to SC2 are highly limited. Hell if anyone ever downloaded mods for SC they would have seen much better differences than this.

The rest of the new stuff is almost new, but in many ways the new units are just old ones with a few changed stats :

- Protoss Stalker - this is just a dragoon with less normal damage and more dmg vs armored targets.
- Protoss Colossus - this is a reaver with liniar aoe damage not circular aoe damage and it doesn't need resources to fire.
- Protoss Phoenix - a shity pathetic scout.
- Protoss Warp Prism - a redesigned shuttle that can deploy into a small pylon.

The only true units for the Protoss are the Warp Ray which is rather interesting and the Immortal which is probably one of the few interesting new units if used correctly.

- Terran Helion - a firebat on wheels.
- Terran Viking - the transformers version of the wraith.
- Raven - a redesigned science vessel with new abillites.
- Thor - an oversized bulky and almost useless ( but really cool ) goliath.
- Medivac Dropship - well a combo of a medic and a dropship.

The new additions for the terrans in the true meaning are the reaper and the Marauder - which in a way also serves as a firebat replacement since it's really powerfull against armored and fast moving targets since it slows them down.

- Zerg Roach - a barfing version of the hydra with no AA attack.
- Zerg Corruptor - a pathetic replacement for the mighty and cool devourer.
- Zerg Infestor - a really pathetic replacement for the defiler.
- Zerg Brood Lord - imo one of the few cool units in the game - but very similar to the guardian.

Nothing truly new for the zerg. And no the nydus worm is not new. The nydus canal worked in the exact same way. Build one entrance, then from that entrance spawn a new one on creep anywhere on the map and boom ... you have a nydus network. Same shit, different name.
The game is almost exactly like SC that was released 12 (TWELVE) years ago. Now i know that if something is not broken don't fix it, but 12 years means aloooot of things got old. And since keeping the game almost an exact same copy with different graphics was not enough, the E-Sport retarded community pissed their pants off because they were afraid to much 'new' would force them to re-think their strategies and decided to force the involution even further. The game user interface is pathetic. Let me give you an example - the highly discussed MBS. While all other freekin new strategies use it, SC2 uses it in the most retarded way. If you select 3 barracks at once and want to build a marine from each you must push the marine icon or hotkey 3 times, once for each barracks. Why not once and all 3 do it like it's normal. Because some pro-gamer shit head thinks that having 10k + clicks per match is cool.
Next - visuals. For a 2010 release the game looks like crap. And i mean CRAP. A big colorful/plastic/shiny looking pile of poo. Models are extremly low poly, textures look like they come from a plastic man game, and the scale ... well as fuckt up as it was in war3. Now i'm not really an adept of real scale, but when half my army is bigger than the structures that produces them it kind of feels really toy-story like. While protoss and terran have acceptable textures, zerg really looks like they are a combination of plastic dildos and rubber balons. SC2 is suppose to have a dark atmosphere. I don't want extreme graphics and stuff like that, but having a game that plays in a dark and serious universe, that derives from the mighty Warhammer 40k universe, look like RA3 feels really shity imo. The only thing that saves this game imo is the protoss archon and the weapon/abillites effects ( some of them anyway, cause others just look like white pixels ).
3D ?! Really. Wow ... i thought it was a zoomable isometric game. Today a game's interface should be all about customization. In starcraft 2 the only thing 3d is the zoom. Nothing else. You cannot rotate the camera ( pressing delete for a 40 degrees rotation that comes back after releasing it is not rotation ... not in a million years ), you cannot rotate your structures you cannot rotate a freekin thing. Zoom is no longer 3d today. It's a feature even 2d games have ( if anyone ever played submarine titans ... that game had a zoom and it was 2d and it was released centuries ago ! ). So 'pro-retarded-players' want no rotation. Ok ... then how about giving us 'noobs' the chance to have it. Add some fukin choices in the game options like :

- full 3d camera rotation : on/off
- building rotation : on/off

How hard can that be to do ? Apparently very. Also when i played Sc2 for the first time i freekin thought i was playn a wc3 mod. Even the map textures and design is similar to wc3. Hell when i played lost temple it felt like i played a sunken ruins tileset map in wc3. Trees and rocks and everything on the map screeeeems wc3. And just for the record .. i spent a shit load of time in the wc3 editor. Except for scripting, i know that editor upside/down. The recycled aloot from wc3. And if they did it from the start, they were probably so much into wc3 and WoW that they couldn't do something different.

Here is a link to the most advanced WC3 mod based on the SC universe that as far as i remember was canceled under blizzard's command : http://www.moddb.com/mods/project-revoluti...shot-1#imagebox. It looks like SC2 on medium graphic options imo.

Engine - no matter what people and blizzard say, the engine is the wc3 one updated. Guys ... it has the exact same limitation as the wc3 one.

As a last thing ... SC2 lacks in gameplay variety. The game is build around the ideea that a single game should probably last a maximum of 20 min. All you do in this game is a continuos unit movement on the map. Train/attack and again and again. A new and modern RTS should offer gameplay possibilites for all types of player. If i like offensive gameplay ... give me units and offensive mechanics. If i like to turtle give me that chance. If i like to play a more support style give me that chance. SC2 only offers ofensive. If you are not an offensive player, if you don't wanna have 10k + clicks per match and don't wanna be in an never ending army movement than my advice ... don't buy it.

So now in the end i can't stop wondering ... why 7 years and still not ready. They have a game that feels and looks almost exactly as it was 12 years ago, it brings absolutlly nothing truly new ( lets not count a couple of units/building to replace some old ones and some pseudo-new-mechanics as new ... much of that can be done by a modder for free and aloooot less time ). Same races, with the same design, with the exact same gameplay mechanics, with almost the exact same features on an engine that was already done and only needed improvements. It makes me wonder 2 things : Either blizzard stuff are fukin retarded and they needed 7 years to do a 3d copy of a 12 years old game or they spent arround 1.5 to 2 actual years of production on this game and the rest was just hype/propaganda and WoW work. Cause i truly think it's pathetic to work 7 ( SEVEN ) years on a game that might as well be an addon for the old one. The things they added in SC2 and call them 'awsome new features' would easyly have been added 1 year after brood war in a second addon. So again .. what is new? What is the great improvement, the great revolution over SC. What makes SC2 become the new ultimate strategy. Imo ... NOTHING. Is it a revolution. Yes! It will be the most award winning and budget builder 'sequel addon' of all times. Because people ... i cannot ... i will not call SC2 a sequel. Kane's Wrath was more of a sequel to CnC3 than SC2 is to SC1.

Will i buy it. HELL NO! I have a collectors edition of SC1 with broodwar. Why the hell would i pay a shit load of money for the same game with better graphics. They do justice to this money greedy assholes called game companies. Blizzard was once a pioneer of cool games. Imo ... they are now a second EA. Good work guys. Long live the 'money milking machine' called WoW, cause i sure as hell hope no one else except your 'pro gamers' will buy this game.

Edited by AJ, 01 March 2010 - 19:53.
Removed piracy and warez comments.

[Libains]

Removed your comments about piracy and whatnot, you know you shouldn't be discussing that here, no matter whether this is the ultimate in cheap re-dos instead of an actual new game. Pity, because it could have been good. Then again, that seems to be the way with most things at the moment...

Edited by AJ, 01 March 2010 - 18:54.

[Camille]

well duh, of course they've only spent a year and a half actually making the game

it's called tempting the consumer and it's one hell of a money-making strategy. you either loose all or experience unseen sales on day one (we're speaking of blizzard here so i think the latter will be true).

SC1/2 aside, i found supcom to be an extremely versatile game in terms of user strategies. you have absolute control over everything including the choice to turtle, assault, sneak around andsoforth.

[Anubis]

I know about SupCom. After playn the first i realized what a real strat game should be. A shame though SC2 is such a pathetic game. Bad news is that supCom 2 has also been simplified and reduced to ashes. I hope not, but tbh i lost faith in gameing, so my expectation of any game are really low atm.

[Libains]

Anubis, you do not revert edits made by a moderator when given specific instruction as to not discuss the content. I'm not in the least bit bothered as to what you do with this in your own time, but it does not mean you can discuss illegal methods of aquiring it here. I hate using the phrase 'verbal warning', but that's what you've got. Feel free to beat this game into the ground, it deserves it. But don't break the rules.

[Anubis]

I did not revert anything. They simply never dissapeared. Or did you askt me to delete them ? I'm confused ...

[Libains]

I removed a section of text in your last paragraph regards cracked versions of the real thing. They re-appeared. Either the board missed it, or something was screwed up my end it seems. Meh

[Lizzie]

Honestly I figured out most of this information without even playing the game.

I wonder how they'll do with the story though...

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

The game is almost exactly like SC that was released 12 (TWELVE) years ago. Now i know that if something is not broken don't fix it, but 12 years means aloooot of things got old. And since keeping the game almost an exact same copy with different graphics was not enough, the E-Sport retarded community pissed their pants off because they were afraid to much 'new' would force them to re-think their strategies and decided to force the involution even further. The game user interface is pathetic. Let me give you an example - the highly discussed MBS. While all other freekin new strategies use it, SC2 uses it in the most retarded way. If you select 3 barracks at once and want to build a marine from each you must push the marine icon or hotkey 3 times, once for each barracks. Why not once and all 3 do it like it's normal. Because some pro-gamer shit head thinks that having 10k + clicks per match is cool.

Actually Blizzard did this to make it more noob friendly. Now instead of selecting individual rax to build different units you just press the hotkeys, same with casting spells. Blame the "casual" community. Graphics are pretty bad I agree, archon IMO is a downgrade from original SC...it's new attack looks so....not powerful and it's too small.

Quote

As a last thing ... SC2 lacks in gameplay variety. The game is build around the ideea that a single game should probably last a maximum of 20 min. All you do in this game is a continuos unit movement on the map. Train/attack and again and again. A new and modern RTS should offer gameplay possibilites for all types of player. If i like offensive gameplay ... give me units and offensive mechanics. If i like to turtle give me that chance. If i like to play a more support style give me that chance. SC2 only offers ofensive. If you are not an offensive player, if you don't wanna have 10k + clicks per match and don't wanna be in an never ending army movement than my advice ... don't buy it.

You haven't played against any person how would you know how long the average game would last? In the original SC games ranged from 5-60 minutes. The reason turtling is stupid is because it allows one player to force a 60+ minute game simply by choosing to turtle. An example is Warcraft 3's RT, turtling there means it's possible to spend well over 2hours in a stupid team game because some guys decided to turtle up, and they get the win because no one wants to spend over 2hours doing that. Regardless, I'm sure you can still turtle fairly well.

I don't think SC2 is much of an improvement (I prefer original BW's units and style) but what do you expect from new mechanics? New mechanics of RTS games nowadays are just retarded gimmicky crap that makes the game have the novelty feel.

SupCom though I agree innovated, for every improvement they made in some area other things had to be sacrificed. For bigger battles it meant sacrificing any ability to manage your army. Your point about SCII needing 100000 clicks is pointless because you'll never need that many clicks at your skill, and SupCom is fairly similar in click spamming except you use most of those clicks in building more base/macro instead of micromanaging battles. That and there's still balance issues that they haven't resolved like experimentals being useless and T3 being so much better than everything else.

[Wizard]

Sharpnessism, on 2 Mar 2010, 6:11, said:

Actually Blizzard did this to make it more noob friendly. Now instead of selecting individual rax to build different units you just press the hotkeys, same with casting spells. Blame the "casual" community. Graphics are pretty bad I agree, archon IMO is a downgrade from original SC...it's new attack looks so....not powerful and it's too small.

*Gets very angry at the dumbing down of computer games*

WTF is with everyone doing that???? Is there no place anymore for skill?

[BeefJeRKy]

Or just the patience to learn maybe?

[Stalker]

After playing a few matches against AI opponents (don't ask how) this game feels like Warcraft 3 with less gameplay-mechanics. (no Heroes, Creeps, Items, etc.)
I never played SC1, but from what I've heard SC2 is more of a remake than a successor.

I still look forward too it but not because of the gameplay, but because of the Galaxy-Editor. This game has great potential from a modders point of view.

I see a lot of similarities with CnC:Generals(ZH) here: The game itself isn't that special, but with help of the community it could become a masterpiece. (Sure you can't really compare the two games. ZH was rushed, SC2 was/is...well ... anything but rushed)

Wizard, on 2 Mar 2010, 9:50, said:

*Gets very angry at the dumbing down of computer games*

WTF is with everyone doing that???? Is there no place anymore for skill?

TBH, dumbing down a RTS-game can also increase the need of skill. In most (complex) RTS-games you have to know all the stats of every unit from every faction to play effectively. Where in dumbed-down games its more skill-dependant IMHO.
But I totally agree with you, dumbing down computer games sucks.

[Anubis]

Sharp - i haven't played against any person indeed, but i have been following almost all replays on the net. I coudln't find a single damn replay that spams over 20 min, and 20 min ussualy means a more casual game than so called 'pro game' . The gameplay is so ofensive oriented that it simply makes almost any other non-offensive related strat useless. WC3 turtleling. I played wc3 for alot of time and i got rather good at it at one point. But i can't say i ever seen a turtle strategy viable in any blizzard game. I usualy play undead, and belive it or not meat wagons and necromancers can become a turtler's nightmare in a few seconds.

You askt about new mechanics : well a new mechanic would be the introduction of a 4th race ( if warhammer can balance 9 races in 4 years, i think it's safe to say blizzard can do it for 4 races in 8 years - double the time, half the amount ). Another new mechanic would be the introduction of strategical points that can be permanently - until destroyed or recaptured - controled on the map ( think of generals oil derricks ). I'm sure in 7 years they could come up with something original to make it non C&Cish. Just the xel'naga watch tower is simply retarded and boring simple. Another new mechanic would be the introduction of naval warfare. If they changed all maps format to the one entrance ramp, i think we can assume it would be fairly simple to do the same to allow water combat. Aloot of stuff can be added to make the gameplay fresh and new. I can understand going for the safe way and keep it as similar to the original ... but come on ... the game got boring after 2 hours of playn because it simply felt like i was playn the same 12 years old game.

Edited by Anubis, 02 March 2010 - 16:51.

[Ion Cannon!]

Anubis, on 2 Mar 2010, 16:49, said:

Sharp - i haven't played against any person indeed, but i have been following almost all replays on the net. I coudln't find a single damn replay that spams over 20 min, and 20 min ussualy means a more casual game than so called 'pro game' . The gameplay is so ofensive oriented that it simply makes almost any other non-offensive related strat useless. WC3 turtleling. I played wc3 for alot of time and i got rather good at it at one point. But i can't say i ever seen a turtle strategy viable in any blizzard game. I usualy play undead, and belive it or not meat wagons and necromancers can become a turtler's nightmare in a few seconds.

You askt about new mechanics : well a new mechanic would be the introduction of a 4th race ( if warhammer can balance 9 races in 4 years, i think it's safe to say blizzard can do it for 4 races in 8 years - double the time, half the amount ). Another new mechanic would be the introduction of strategical points that can be permanently - until destroyed or recaptured - controled on the map ( think of generals oil derricks ). I'm sure in 7 years they could come up with something original to make it non C&Cish. Just the xel'naga watch tower is simply retarded and boring simple. Another new mechanic would be the introduction of naval warfare. If they changed all maps format to the one entrance ramp, i think we can assume it would be fairly simple to do the same to allow water combat. Aloot of stuff can be added to make the gameplay fresh and new. I can understand going for the safe way and keep it as similar to the original ... but come on ... the game got boring after 2 hours of playn because it simply felt like i was playn the same 12 years old game.

I would imagine blizzard have taken into serious consideration - The korean factor, its practically their national sport so blizzard will be trying to remain true to the original game in order to capitalise on this market. Remember, its Activision Blizzard, no longer is it just blizzard.

[Sharpnessism]

Anubis, on 2 Mar 2010, 11:49, said:

Sharp - i haven't played against any person indeed, but i have been following almost all replays on the net. I coudln't find a single damn replay that spams over 20 min, and 20 min ussualy means a more casual game than so called 'pro game' . The gameplay is so ofensive oriented that it simply makes almost any other non-offensive related strat useless. WC3 turtleling. I played wc3 for alot of time and i got rather good at it at one point. But i can't say i ever seen a turtle strategy viable in any blizzard game. I usualy play undead, and belive it or not meat wagons and necromancers can become a turtler's nightmare in a few seconds.

You askt about new mechanics : well a new mechanic would be the introduction of a 4th race ( if warhammer can balance 9 races in 4 years, i think it's safe to say blizzard can do it for 4 races in 8 years - double the time, half the amount ). Another new mechanic would be the introduction of strategical points that can be permanently - until destroyed or recaptured - controled on the map ( think of generals oil derricks ). I'm sure in 7 years they could come up with something original to make it non C&Cish. Just the xel'naga watch tower is simply retarded and boring simple. Another new mechanic would be the introduction of naval warfare. If they changed all maps format to the one entrance ramp, i think we can assume it would be fairly simple to do the same to allow water combat. Aloot of stuff can be added to make the gameplay fresh and new. I can understand going for the safe way and keep it as similar to the original ... but come on ... the game got boring after 2 hours of playn because it simply felt like i was playn the same 12 years old game.

Necrowagon is really only viable in FFA...in other game types better players just get dispel and your skeletons become free EXP. If you have not seen turtling in Warcraft 3 then you probalby quit before it became popular for Human to make 100 towers and sit on gold mines or for Rteam games to devolve into people spamming towers on cliffs so that it's impossible to take them down without spending another hour or 2. And what does a pro or noob game have to do with game length? You don't know if "pro" strategies will lead to 5 minutes or 100 minute length in games, mostly b/c there are no pros. You have no idea what the game really plays like because no one really knows yet.

About a 4th race, Blizzard tried that in Warcraft 3 and decided that it's too hard to make 3 unique but balanced races. The amount of time spent in development doesn't affect the overall balance, because innovative and skillful players are the ones that create the dominant/possible strategies. Blizzard wants E-Sports in SC2 to succeed like SC1, so the amount of time spent in the "lets fix all bugs/imbalances" phase must be minimized from their point of view (especially if SC2 wants to compete against SC1). Water combat would just have people complaining why there is water combat at all in a futuristic game. And Warhammer is one of the games known to be highly imbalanced, with some races simply being too powerful. Starcraft is the only game I know that has unique factions and has balanced them so well.

Quote

After playing a few matches against AI opponents (don't ask how) this game feels like Warcraft 3 with less gameplay-mechanics. (no Heroes, Creeps, Items, etc.)
I never played SC1, but from what I've heard SC2 is more of a remake than a successor.

No heroes is how SC2 is meant to be played, that is all. Warcraft 3's heroes lead to a different kind of gameplay, with a very heavy focus on the hero, with some heroes being able to take on a 30-40 food army by themselves at some points.

Quote

TBH, dumbing down a RTS-game can also increase the need of skill. In most (complex) RTS-games you have to know all the stats of every unit from every faction to play effectively. Where in dumbed-down games its more skill-dependant IMHO.
But I totally agree with you, dumbing down computer games sucks.

Starcraft is already very simple in terms of what you need to learn. There are very few armor types, unit abilities clearly tell you what to do, etc. Dumbing down a game effectively lowers its skill ceiling, which is bad. Ofc, many "modernizations" of games can also be seen as dumbing-down so Blizzard has tried to strike a good balance. Modernization would be reducing the amount of clicks to perform an action normally.

Edited by Sharpnessism, 02 March 2010 - 18:11.

[Anubis]

Ok. I haven't played WC3 for 3 years ( without counting custom self made maps ). But i fail to understand where on earth did they get the resources necessary for so many towers. Unless you guys played on a wc3 version of big games hunter ( unlimited gold mines ) or games of 1v1 or 2v2 on maps of 10-12 players, there simply isn't enough resources to make so many defenses. After 10 min in the game your starting resources are close to depleted, and a secondary expansion is a must if you don't already have it. The amount of available expansion on 2-4 player maps are simply not enough, and neither is the terrain space to build so many defenses. But meh ... maybe in 3 years alot has changed.
Turtleling in SC. Well let me tell you a short story. I have a friend on the interent and we were both sc freeks. We talked about it aloot. 1 day he wouldn't shut up about a great turtleling strat he has so he chalanged me to a game. I played zerg, he played protoss. 20 min later he had his whole main base sorrounded with photon cannons ( we played on BigGameHunters so he could turtle as much as he wanted ) and was warping in shit loads of carriers. The end result is ... he failed big time. I countered his carriers with shit loads of cheap scorges, and simply wtached his 30+ carrier squads be humiliated by my scourges. Then just to prove to him how much sc's defenses fail, i attacked his base with 24 ( 2 squads ) of ultralisks. The ultralisk is a freekin melee unit. that means that it has to be near the target to damage it. Well by the end of the game his base was in ruins and i barely lost 12 of those ultras. The point is he had ( and i'm not shiting around ) 100 + cannons. They all failed. My ultras were clawing through them like a knife through butter. I called him the ultimate sc turtler cause i never seen so many defenses for a single player. We then played again, and he used terrans. The end result was the same. He changed carriers for battlecruissers and cannons for bunkers, siege tanks and turrets. He managed to take out almost all my ultras, but the result was the same. So imo turtle fails big time in SC.
But we went to far. The point of my topic is the following. We waited 7+ years for this game. They had 7 + years to make it. The engine is the same as warcrafts but improved. Anyone who disagrees is like saying that the BFME2 engine is a totaly new and uniq engine compaired to the generals engine. No ... it's the same old sage improved and enhanced to be able to sustain bfme's mechanics. SC2 engine is a wc3 engine with improvements. So the thing is ... it took them 7 + years to do an almost exact copy of a 12 years old game. This is the point of this topic. To show how much blizzard literaly pissed on us, by trowing crap in our faces that sc2 will take strategy to a new level, when in the end, it brings NOTHING new to a 12 years old gameplay. If that is what a new level means ... then again long live Jack Sparrow and his kind.

[Sharpnessism]

Anubis, on 2 Mar 2010, 15:19, said:

Ok. I haven't played WC3 for 3 years ( without counting custom self made maps ). But i fail to understand where on earth did they get the resources necessary for so many towers. Unless you guys played on a wc3 version of big games hunter ( unlimited gold mines ) or games of 1v1 or 2v2 on maps of 10-12 players, there simply isn't enough resources to make so many defenses. After 10 min in the game your starting resources are close to depleted, and a secondary expansion is a must if you don't already have it. The amount of available expansion on 2-4 player maps are simply not enough, and neither is the terrain space to build so many defenses. But meh ... maybe in 3 years alot has changed.

In team games there are maps with cliff expansions or just cliff spots where it's possible to tower and hold up the game for an hour. In 1v1 it's very much possible to just tower up and out-gold your enemy as Human after taking an expansion.

Quote

Turtleling in SC. Well let me tell you a short story. I have a friend on the interent and we were both sc freeks. We talked about it aloot. 1 day he wouldn't shut up about a great turtleling strat he has so he chalanged me to a game. I played zerg, he played protoss. 20 min later he had his whole main base sorrounded with photon cannons ( we played on BigGameHunters so he could turtle as much as he wanted ) and was warping in shit loads of carriers. The end result is ... he failed big time. I countered his carriers with shit loads of cheap scorges, and simply wtached his 30+ carrier squads be humiliated by my scourges. Then just to prove to him how much sc's defenses fail, i attacked his base with 24 ( 2 squads ) of ultralisks. The ultralisk is a freekin melee unit. that means that it has to be near the target to damage it. Well by the end of the game his base was in ruins and i barely lost 12 of those ultras. The point is he had ( and i'm not shiting around ) 100 + cannons. They all failed. My ultras were clawing through them like a knife through butter. I called him the ultimate sc turtler cause i never seen so many defenses for a single player. We then played again, and he used terrans. The end result was the same. He changed carriers for battlecruissers and cannons for bunkers, siege tanks and turrets. He managed to take out almost all my ultras, but the result was the same. So imo turtle fails big time in SC.

Well IDK what he was doing then because it takes less than 1 control group of sairs to take down scourge before they hit carriers. BGH isn't a real representation of a game anyway.

Quote

But we went to far. The point of my topic is the following. We waited 7+ years for this game. They had 7 + years to make it. The engine is the same as warcrafts but improved. Anyone who disagrees is like saying that the BFME2 engine is a totaly new and uniq engine compaired to the generals engine. No ... it's the same old sage improved and enhanced to be able to sustain bfme's mechanics. SC2 engine is a wc3 engine with improvements. So the thing is ... it took them 7 + years to do an almost exact copy of a 12 years old game. This is the point of this topic. To show how much blizzard literaly pissed on us, by trowing crap in our faces that sc2 will take strategy to a new level, when in the end, it brings NOTHING new to a 12 years old gameplay. If that is what a new level means ... then again long live Jack Sparrow and his kind.

Yes the engine looks like it is an improved version of Warcraft'3 engine. But how do you know strategy is limited? Have you played the original SC:BW competitively? If not, how do you know how many more/less strategies there would be? What would you even constitute as a strategy then?

Edited by Sharpnessism, 03 March 2010 - 00:53.

[Pandut]

I'll probably buy SC2 only for the storymode and offline play. Chances I won't touch online.

[Lizzie]

Sobek, on 3 Mar 2010, 1:15, said:

I'll probably buy SC2 only for the storymode and offline play. Chances I won't touch online.

Likewise, I don't give a shit about Starcraft multiplayer, I'm just in it for the story.

Oh wait, I forgot, they're gonna charge me money for each segment of the story ... well fuck that I guess.

[Shirou]

I personally think what SC2 is now shows Blizzard is afraid of what happened to EA and the CnC series. EA tried to renew their gameplay lots of times but they always got extreme hate and whine and athough the reviews weren't bad they never touched the 90+ either. This strategy of blizzard, don't fix what ain't broke, may perhaps be nice for the e-sports, korean social ghosts and other competitive players, but I seriously don't see what fun it is playing a game that's nearly exactly the same.

Naturally, I havent played SC2 and SC1 only casually, but I have seen some of those commented replay videos in which it shows that this really isnt innovative at all. Of course, many players view SC as the greatest RTS of all time and if SC2 is just as good, simply because its so similar, then you will have a very good game. On the other hand, I would have expected blizzard who has taken out seven years to make this game to at least be able to expand their borders and make a game that is even better than Starcraft. If not that, a game that expands on current technological advances instead of just going 3D, insert a little not-so-influental gameplay assets and be done with it.

I'm going to do it, I'm going to compare it to CnC4. If SC2 is really based on an improved WC3 engine, then they didnt have to take time to develop an egine either, so development time wise that sets the balance straight with CnC. Now when I assume that effective development of SC2 took six years, and CnC4 took 2, what the hell has blizzard been doing?

Blizzard had the money, the allegiance and the oppurtunity to make a game that would expand the borders of RTS gameplay as since Company of Heroes we haven't really seen a really innovative game on the front, just sequels to sequels. This could have really been it, and could have awakened all the RTS developers about how to create an innovative game.

To quote Sharp:

Quote

I don't think SC2 is much of an improvement (I prefer original BW's units and style) but what do you expect from new mechanics? New mechanics of RTS games nowadays are just retarded gimmicky crap that makes the game have the novelty feel.

Why do you think that? Because lately novelties in RTS games have been scarce, unimpressive and not well executed perhaps? Has that made you so pessimistic to think that we better stay with what we have and replay the same core gameplay forever? I sure hope not. I want to see an innovative game. My last statement is very opinionated, but CnC4 actually tried to be innovative and EA has never been flamed, trolled and burned so hard before, while their game really isn't that bad. What is happening to SC2 is exactly what most CnC fans have been shouting since the dawn of the millenium.

Apparently, we all want a game thats the same to your predecessor and the whine and hate has subsequently scared the shit out of blizzard and perhaps especially ActivisionBlizzards evil shareholders, so they make it for you. There, SC1 with better graphics, have fun, I won't buy it. I'll go for CnC4.

Edited by Shock, 04 March 2010 - 15:48.

[Anubis]

I'll go for none. EA tried to renew the gameplay and i respect that decission. But when you make a new gameplay that looks like a capture the flag in flash it's really pathetic. CnC 4 has absolutly no strategical depth. All you do is 'crawl' around with a shity looking unit, deploy it and drop some units, while you run with your fatser unit, get the flag ... i mean the tiberium crystal and hope to god your unit runs faster than the enemy tanks. This is basicly the entire cnc 4 gameplay. The crawler ideea was great, but the way they implemented it is so pathetic it's just pissing me off again . If they would have went for something similar to how Homeworld 2 was then the whole concept would have taken a whole new feeling.

As for SC2, i think you guys missed one thing. If you buy the game for it's campaign of for it's multiplayer, it doesn't matter. Blizzard still gets the money. I don't think they give a crap about the reason you buy their product as long as they get the cash. The idea is for us gamers to step forward and refuse to actually 'BUY' the game. It's like telling a chocolate producer that you're not buying it's products for their taste but because you like the wrapper it's in. Soo ?! ... they still get the money, so they will continue to produce the same crap. The are alternatives to original games. Sooner or later gamers will have to show producers we need more than just hype and shity products.

PS: as a side note ... supreme commander 2 is another piece of shit with alot of history behind. While the first one was freekin awsome, the second got simplified to such a degree you almost feel like they either rushed it and never had the time to finish it, or they just tried to create the most retarded sequel to a cool game.

Edited by Anubis, 04 March 2010 - 16:18.

[Dutchygamer]

Shock, on 4 Mar 2010, 16:47, said:

*Shock's previous post*

Godlike post

Edited by Dutchygamer, 04 March 2010 - 16:19.

[Shirou]

Well yeah on CnC4 I agree the strategy isn't like it used to be with the base building turned off, but every single side (offense, defense and support) from each faction, has got more options for you to explore than a lone faction in CnC3, and you get to switch during games, and this is the most team-based RTS game I have ever played.

This game is not meant for the 1vs1 what Starcraft 2 is doing, this is meant for team games, and with five players and three different classes per side, the possible strategies are much more numerous than you imagined in your post, its just that you need more than yourself to actually explore all of that. I managed level 20 with Nod today in the Beta and now that I have all the toys abound its real fun. No more standard strategy when you enter the map and start the battle, you can choose whatever you want to do from the beginning on, and thats what I like.

CnC4 has its flaws, majorly its lack of different gameplay modes as there is so much more potential in the team based crawler gameplay. Alas, they are on a tight deadline and lower budget probably because the change isn't going to convince people very fast (So its hard to predict sales). Just so you know, I don't think the bosses at EA are stupid. They know CnC fans dont like change and they know they took a risk, thas why the risk isnt that great and the game probably doesnt have as much content as Starcraft 2. The core gameplay however, is bullseye. I hope they expand on it in a next game to make it real good.

Just remember if you buy SC2, that your game is a dumbed down remake of SC1 made by a scared, pessimist, skeptic devteam not willing to feel the thorn of ActivisionBlizzards shareholders, the same guys that are fucking up CoD now. Blizzard, I shudder, but you wont escape Dr. Kotickevil either.

Edited by Shock, 04 March 2010 - 22:48.

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

Shock, on 4 Mar 2010, 10:47, said:

I personally think what SC2 is now shows Blizzard is afraid of what happened to EA and the CnC series. EA tried to renew their gameplay lots of times but they always got extreme hate and whine and athough the reviews weren't bad they never touched the 90+ either. This strategy of blizzard, don't fix what ain't broke, may perhaps be nice for the e-sports, korean social ghosts and other competitive players, but I seriously don't see what fun it is playing a game that's nearly exactly the same.

Naturally, I havent played SC2 and SC1 only casually, but I have seen some of those commented replay videos in which it shows that this really isnt innovative at all. Of course, many players view SC as the greatest RTS of all time and if SC2 is just as good, simply because its so similar, then you will have a very good game. On the other hand, I would have expected blizzard who has taken out seven years to make this game to at least be able to expand their borders and make a game that is even better than Starcraft. If not that, a game that expands on current technological advances instead of just going 3D, insert a little not-so-influental gameplay assets and be done with it.

I'm going to do it, I'm going to compare it to CnC4. If SC2 is really based on an improved WC3 engine, then they didnt have to take time to develop an egine either, so development time wise that sets the balance straight with CnC. Now when I assume that effective development of SC2 took six years, and CnC4 took 2, what the hell has blizzard been doing?

Blizzard had the money, the allegiance and the oppurtunity to make a game that would expand the borders of RTS gameplay as since Company of Heroes we haven't really seen a really innovative game on the front, just sequels to sequels. This could have really been it, and could have awakened all the RTS developers about how to create an innovative game.

Innovation is nice but I care the most about the gameplay. Example would be CoH, it was really good for a long time, ofc, after a while people were able to find some imbalances or just bad faction design (new factions gain bonuses when you attackmove them in a blob...), but Relic has long past dropped support for CoH, which is disappointing. Things like this make the game very frustrating to play regardless of how much it innovated. Each expansion seemed to take away strategical elements the original game had. As you climb the ranks of the game you realize how much gimmicky crap each faction is forced to rely on to win for certain matchups, what once seemed innovative becomes boring and stagnate.

SCII to me also seems disappointing but in the end it's the gameplay that matters, and no one knows how the game will play out after a year from its release (new strategies, patches, higher skills). A game that doesn't have to rely on gimmicks to define interactions between two players is a success in my eyes, the gimmicks/innovations are only a bonus if they work well.

Quote

To quote Sharp:

Quote

I don't think SC2 is much of an improvement (I prefer original BW's units and style) but what do you expect from new mechanics? New mechanics of RTS games nowadays are just retarded gimmicky crap that makes the game have the novelty feel.

Why do you think that? Because lately novelties in RTS games have been scarce, unimpressive and not well executed perhaps? Has that made you so pessimistic to think that we better stay with what we have and replay the same core gameplay forever? I sure hope not. I want to see an innovative game. My last statement is very opinionated, but CnC4 actually tried to be innovative and EA has never been flamed, trolled and burned so hard before, while their game really isn't that bad. What is happening to SC2 is exactly what most CnC fans have been shouting since the dawn of the millenium.

I have seen VERY few games with success in innovating. Most of them end up dead because of bad support and the overcomplications that arise from the gimmicks that are stuck into the game. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic but in the current market of games, I don't that that's a horrible attitude to take. You say we shouldn't stay with the same core gameplay forever, but how many games have successfully emulated SC:BW? Outside of Blizzard games, most have tried "new" things but have failed. People that have played Warcraft 3 and SC:BW will tell you they're extremely different, almost opposite in a sense, but the main difference is the addition of hero elements. Games like this only seem similar superficially.

Quote

Apparently, we all want a game thats the same to your predecessor and the whine and hate has subsequently scared the shit out of blizzard and perhaps especially ActivisionBlizzards evil shareholders, so they make it for you. There, SC1 with better graphics, have fun, I won't buy it. I'll go for CnC4.

I'll watch for CnC4 but I have my doubts (same ones I had for CnC4 and RA3), I have some doubts for SC2 but I'll probably be more inclined to buy it after a year than CnC4.

[Pandut]

Lizzie, on 3 Mar 2010, 17:05, said:

Sobek, on 3 Mar 2010, 1:15, said:

I'll probably buy SC2 only for the storymode and offline play. Chances I won't touch online.

Likewise, I don't give a shit about Starcraft multiplayer, I'm just in it for the story.

Oh wait, I forgot, they're gonna charge me money for each segment of the story ... well fuck that I guess.

Well, new video games that are released are usually around 50-70 dollars depending on where you're from.

Each slice of SC2 costs 20$ if I remember, so technically it's the same price as any other game. Why they don't have it in one bundle to save money and manufacturing time is beyond me.