Starcraft 2

Yes, SC2 IS a skirmish game. That's exactly what it is.

You are also utterly, thoroughly and unbelievably wrong, and this sort of attitude in gaming- satisfaction with mediocrity- is a major problem, because there are always crowds who like things that are simply not up to part because they have lost their objective reasoning on the matter and are seduced by other things. The skirmish game here is not substantially different to where it was 12 years ago. Gaming has moved on. Anyone who even thinks about saying something on the lines if "If it ain't broke..." is also part of the problem. Liking this for being an updated Starcraft is fine. Pretending that this is so good that it will be THE gaming event of the decade is... ridiculous. A disservice to the whole concept of gaming.

You talk about Blizzard's service- they've spent 10 years trying to patch it and still not got it right. It's nice they continued support, of course, but it's not all that. DoWII has, in a tenth of the time, added a whole new game mode and co-op experience for free, that has extended the value of the game enormously. That's PROPER post-launch service.

DoWII's attitude to skirmishing is changing the genre. They've not got it all right- I can give a big list of DOwII's problems- but they DID get a lot right and they are moving in the right direction, and C&C4 is picking up the wave.

This is massively disappointing in comparison., It is just there to pick up the Korean-style market. BF reporting that, even internally, they are not impressed is very, VERY believeable.

And I really wanted much much more from Blizzard.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
ddm there are tons od videos on youtube... why not just watch those and gain an opinion from the actual gameplay and the commentators? ush already has an established negative opinion on the game so of course most of what he says is going to be unfavorable...

You say that as if me having a negative opinion invalidates it. The fact that I have played the game and formed my opinion FROM that seems lost on you...

Note my problem with distinguishing was with the Zerg, but my friend reported it with the Terrans.

You know, a 'select next idle military unit' button would be very welcome.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, SC2 IS a skirmish game. That's exactly what it is.

You are also utterly, thoroughly and unbelievably wrong, and this sort of attitude in gaming- satisfaction with mediocrity- is a major problem, because there are always crowds who like things that are simply not up to part because they have lost their objective reasoning on the matter and are seduced by other things. The skirmish game here is not substantially different to where it was 12 years ago. Gaming has moved on. Anyone who even thinks about saying something on the lines if "If it ain't broke..." is also part of the problem. Liking this for being an updated Starcraft is fine. Pretending that this is so good that it will be THE gaming event of the decade is... ridiculous. A disservice to the whole concept of gaming.

You talk about Blizzard's service- they've spent 10 years trying to patch it and still not got it right. It's nice they continued support, of course, but it's not all that. DoWII has, in a tenth of the time, added a whole new game mode and co-op experience for free, that has extended the value of the game enormously. That's PROPER post-launch service.

DoWII's attitude to skirmishing is changing the genre. They've not got it all right- I can give a big list of DOwII's problems- but they DID get a lot right and they are moving in the right direction, and C&C4 is picking up the wave.

This is massively disappointing in comparison., It is just there to pick up the Korean-style market. BF reporting that, even internally, they are not impressed is very, VERY believeable.

And I really wanted much much more from Blizzard.

innovation =\= improvement. you saying it does doesnt mean it does. is DoW2 doing something "new", taking the genre in a different direction? technically no because its gameplay is ridiculously identical to company of heroes which came out 5 years ago, but for the sake of argument, sure.

the direction its taking it in is not a good one though. that is simply a fact. and when there are still one million people playing sc2 every day ten years later while the DoW2 servers are near empty and theyve moved on to DoW4 that fact will be even more established.

Innovation might not always equal improvement, but LACKING innovation is a disaster. Good innovation is necessary, especially over a damn decade on!

And like I say, the world is full of fools like that. And playing on the competitive level quickly shows you how full it is of nasty, spiteful, unpleasant idiots who help destroy the face of gaming. It is ONLY the hyper-competitive sports crowd that provide those massive numbers. Starcraft can keep them.

Calling DoWII identical to Company of Heroes is wrong enough to invalidate your opinion. It is a clear evolution of the ideas they started with in there and DoW2. The fact of the matter is that the RTS genre is advancing to good effect- even Blizzard have directly said it needs to evolve, though they aren't doing it with SC2.

And luckily, enough people DO recognise this and buy and play these better games to keep this positive development going.

Meanwhille, I am still open to the single player being good.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
[B]You say that as if me having a negative opinion invalidates it. The fact that I have played the game and formed my opinion FROM that seems lost on you...

this has nothing to do with what i said.

my point was simply that it pays to not put all of your eggs in one basket. if ne person gives a negative review on a product find a positive one and find a neutral review and compare and contrast them.

Note my problem with distinguishing was with the Zerg, but my friend reported it with the Terrans.

You know, a 'select next idle military unit' button would be very welcome.

and like i just said my friend reported the same problem while i had no problems with it at all... so i agree. obviously for some people its a problem.

Well then I guess it is down to how much he values the opinion, isn't it?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Innovation might not always equal improvement, but LACKING innovation is a disaster. Good innovation is necessary, especially over a damn decade on!

this is simply untrue. it is not necessary at all!

hell soccer baseball football all these sports have been playing in the same way for the last hundred years no innovation required. yet every year millions of people pay through the nose to enjoy it. and a game is a game.

And like I say, the world is full of fools like that. And playing on the competitive level quickly shows yo how full it is of nasty, spiteful, unpleasant idiots who help destroy the face of gaming.

they dont destroy the face of gaming at all, nor are they fools. theyre people who enjy a game because they like the gameplay not because theyre retentively focused on changing it up. ive been playing soccer for the last ten years and ill continue playing it for ten more years regardless of the fact that it'll be the same old game with the same old mechanics.

Calling DoWII identical to Company of Heroes is wrong enough to invalidate your opinion. It is a clear evolution of the ideas they started with in there and DoW2.

really? show me how they dont have the same fundamental mechanics. they even use the same colors for the types of cover for christs sake. the suppression aspect the retreat aspect, the grenades and det. packs the line of fire for the auto rifleman. its not an "evolution" because the changes in the gameplay is ridiculously minute.

Meanwhille, I am still open to the single player being good.

im curious about it as well. more than anything though i wonder if theyll be able to make the story itself as good as the first games.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well then I guess it is down to how much he values the opinion, isn't it?

absolutely!

edit

DoW2 gameplay is pretty enjoyable, but I still like the good old fashioned base-building and resource collecting style better.

i do as well

Comparing an physical sport like soccer to a developing medium like computer gaming doesn't work. The only comparison would be if someone made Soccer II, made you pay for all your training and equipment all over again, and it turned out to be the same sport in snazzier outfits.

Meanwhile, sports games on computers need innovation too, and they only ever improve when they innovate. If you don't think innovation and development in games is needed then... well, it is a shame

As for things in DOWII that are not in CoH- oh come on! They took ages building the new engine to handle the many new things. The pathing system, melee combat (a MUCH bigger deal than you might think), some five times the skeleton types, a totally revamped physics engine... you are confusing the fact that it has taken elements from CoH for saying it is the same as CoH. NOT an reasonable opinion. The changes are many and substantial and took an enormous amount of work.

And yes, most of those masses are fools. A lot of mass gaming is idiocy and the mob can always be lulled into being satisfied with that that is inadequate. Don't tell me Nintendogs is the be all and end all of gaming. And as I say, acceptance of mediocrity DOES damage gaming. Innovators are desperately needed- and as I said, even Blizzard concurs.

The thing is, you only ever come across here as someone rabidly defending Starcraft- which I am sure you will continue to do after this comes out. It does not look like you are being fully rational about it- it looks like you would defend it whether it was actually any good or not.

I don't mean to get at you so much; I am just aggravated. The game is not bad, by any means. But, and speaking as a massive fan of the original, it is a great disappointment. I refuse to be satisfied by or accepting of a simple graphical update of the first game. Not after this long. After this long, it should have been something magical. People that DO accept what it is as being enough... will get little respect from me, because it is that attitude- giving a demand that satisified such a... non-advance such as this- that holds back gaming.

If people were NOT tolerant of that- if Blizzard didn't know they could just release the same thing and watch millions of Koreans snap it up- then they would be forced to make something better.

That's why people living this will bug me. I want gaming to go further forward.

-

The only real thing I miss from old style RTS games is the satisfaction of demolishing the enemy base. And DoW2 has got it wrong with the amount of running around and point tagging you do in its skirmish mode. There could also be a limited amount oif base building returned to it. Like I said, there is plenty wrong there. But god, compared to the tedium of all the time I have to stuff into moving great numbers of peons around in SC2, just to make buildings that have no real function other than as a pacing mechanic... then yes, DoW2s direction is utterly superior. Like I say, that is why others are copying it. I am sure Blizzard will eventually as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they did a better job of it when they do, too.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
ddm there are tons od videos on youtube... why not just watch those and gain an opinion from the actual gameplay and the commentators? ush already has an established negative opinion on the game so of course most of what he says is going to be unfavorable...

I've watched lots of vids. It didn't look bad, at all. And, youtube vids do not compare to playing the game on my alienware PC that's hooked up to my big screen (1080p, 52", 120hz). I take the grainy, pixelated videos as a grain of salt until I see things on my home setup. The game-play didn't look that bad, but, they are usually quick demos, nothing like a genuine hands on, like Ushgarak got. The "feel" of a game has to be played to figure out, which is really what I'm missing.

There's also the fact that Ushgarak and I have abotu a 80% overlap in game opinions. Usually games he doesn't like, I don't. Usually games he rates favorably, I like. That's why I come this place: To avoid wasting money on a game I thought would be awesome.

I still reserve final judgment until I play the game.

Have you gotten a hands on of the game, yet? If you have, what did you think of the game compared to the original? Is it better in many ways? Worse? Etc. I really liked the old: still my favorite RTS. IMO, all RTS's that came after were missing things, here and there, and tried to over complicate or made the controls clunky.

Just a note- the latest beta patch has made an effort to improve zerg unit visibility.

Which is welcome, though they refer to it being on creep. In my experience, it is being near (or with air units, over) buildings that is the issue. There is something about the graphical style and palette which makes things less clear than they could. I couldn't find a zergling over desert today, either- zerglings are small and not distinctive. A pain.

I intend to give this a more thorough going over sometime soon, though I understand the beta will last a while. I do wish they'd unlock the proper AI though!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Definitely more than War3- I believe that was a stated aim.

I don't think there are any downgrades, though I am not a balance expert. It's very overwhelming at first, with abilities that affect buildings (A Protoss time thing that speeds up the production capacity of a building, and a relationship between the Zerg birth queen and producing larvae (this zerg queen is also one of the new ways to begin spreading creep).

Starting with more peons is a step in the right direction, but I am still stunned by the number of mineral patches on a map. That much effort into resource management is no fun for me at all.

Actually e better step in the right direction would have been to make you need fewer peons, rather than starting with more.

I still think my absolute favorite RTS is still CNC Generals : Zero Hour

I've been playing the beta for a few weeks now and I've been enjoying it. I'm glad they recycled it's original formula because it was an efficient one. I don't believe Blizzard's consumers would have enjoyed a major or even a moderate overhaul because I don't think the simplistic yet effective mechanics of SC2 required that. Innovation means "new" and "different" but doesn't necessarily mean "better." Sometimes, innovation can destroy something beautiful.

And sometimes repeating what you have already done in order to please a myopic fanbase is poor service. I also am unsure in what may messing around with the supply train as you have to is 'efficient'. It is the exact opposite- flabby and wasteful. It was more acceptable in the 90s; things should move on. Stuff like Company of Heroes was simply better than Starcraft but they have, quite deliberately, refused to take any advancements in the genre on board.

Repeating this silly mantra about innovation is semantically empty. Obviously innovation has to be sensible, but innovation is at the core of computer gaming as a genre. I know there are those who wish that Zelda and Mario had forever remained 2d but do not expect me to see such a position as sensible.

In the end, as I say, I don't give a damn what the click-per-second obsessed crowd say (the ones who will buy this in droves). If Blizzard has just released the same thing as last time but shinier, that is a valid criticism and I will criticise them for it. No matter how you phrase it, it is NOT justified for the game experience to be almost identical to a 12 year old game- what the hell HAS the development time actually been spent on? Tell me why this could not have been done in half the time.

im sure that crowd feels the same way about you.

theyre right though.

No, they are not. A lot of that click-obsessed crowd are the most hostile, unpleasant and basically dumb people you could meet and their obsessive attitude is poisonous to gaming. If the result of their pressure is that Starcraft's sequel has NOTHING significant to show for itself after all that time, then they are to be cursed.

The same goes for all mob-based mentalities in gaming. It's the same thing that causes endless amounts of shovelled crap on the Wii. It's not acceptable and it must be criticised.

It would have been many, many times better if Blizzard had pushed the genre forwards, and be damned to such atavistic attitudes. They still have the original to play anyway.

This will actually be the very first time that Blizzard has done such a thing. The Diablo and Warcraft sequels were greatly advanced on their predecessors. Blizzard was long a byword for new and innovative gaming approaches, or significant development of an existing idea. They've never been this... static before.

All applying to skirmish mode here, anyway.

except, that isnt true. i dont see how you can just throw out a bunch of declerative statements and not substantiate any of them. "theyre hostile and dumb!", theyre poisonous to gaming!" "starcraft 2 has nothing siginifcant to show for it!" yeah we get it, youre very opinionated.

but thats just it. those are all opinions not facts. and theyre all wrong.

All you do is rabidly defend this game with no sense behind what you say. Don't expect me to take you seriously. You are just annoyed that people are listening to me. It so happens that my opinion counts for something around here.

Anyway, you are out and out lying. I HAVE backed up what I said, and I would thank you to appreciate that.

Don't get so touchy just because I have issues with your sacred cow. If this game didn't have Starcraft as its title, it would get written off as just another RTS clone.