all you do is throw around your opinions like they're facts without any substantiation or justification, and expect us to bow down and consider them as such. i dont care if people listen to you or agree with you, and i dont really care at all if you think i do. if it helps you sleep at night fine, but dont expect me to take you seriously either.
Difference is, I genuinely don't care what you think- but judging by your responses in here, you DEFINITELY care about what I am saying. Nice try.
Meanwhile, if all you can do is repeat exactly what you said before and just ignore any points I make to the contrary, you're just wasting time. Please only post if you have something useful or constructive to say.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Difference is, I genuinely don't care what you think- but judging by your responses in here, you DEFINITELY care about what I am saying. Nice try.Meanwhile, if all you can do is repeat exactly what you said before and just ignore any points I make to the contrary, you're just wasting time. Please only post if you have something useful or constructive to say.
if youre so fascinated with me that you feel the need to bring me up personally, shoot a pm my way. however the topic of this thread is about starcraft and its fanbase, and has nothing to do with me, so if you dont get back on topic im going to have to report you.
since you failed to actually address what i said, ill repeat it for you.
you think that the majority of the starcraft fan base, quote on quote "click-per-second obsessed crowd" are "hostile unpleasant and basically dumb". why do you feel that way? more importantly, how is this factually true?
Don't threaten me like that, marvel. All you have done is hound me in here whenever I post to simply attack me, without adding anything to the debate. In that respect, trying to make out that I am doing something off-topic is feeble, and if you troll me like that again you will get an official warning, Tread very carefully indeed.
And I think it from long personal experience of myself, my friends and intelligent commentators on gaming. The whole hyper-competitive e-sports thing is an aggressive, adrenaline filled nightmare. The Korean-style mentality produces people that are not good losers, not good winners- and simply not pleasant gamers. They are, however, very lucrative, which is why Blizzard has gone for them.
I've already told you that you are going to like this game as it is exactly the type of thing you apparently like. But you just won't leave it, will you? You cannot take the fact that I do NOT like it being so similar to before and criticise it as such. You should let it go.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And sometimes repeating what you have already done in order to please a myopic fanbase is poor service.
One might say that not appealing to your fanbase is destructive. It's almost a double edged sword because developers that do not cater to their fans are often ostracized for it. Heavily. I mean, "Star Wars Galaxies" is a prime example of what kind of disastrous results can be produced from turning a deaf ear toward your fanbase. Then again, I think catering utterly to your fanbase can be quite a mistake as well because, at that point, is it really *YOU* that is creating the game? Listening too closely to your fanbase can produce something too muddled. Developers hardly do this, though. They usually have the coherency to sift properly through the recommendations.
I can agree with this in some partial manner, though. I don't think Blizzard should have generated a game that was nearly a carbon copy of something so dated but it's not as dramatically horrid as you're making it sound. Not every game requires evolution and sometimes, as I mentioned, taking that risk can produce ugly results. This is particularly true when you have such a focused fanbase who would cringe at the face of any sort of improper change.
I'm not saying that Blizzard should necessarily "appeal to the majority" here but they could get their ideas distorted if they take too far of a jump with the "Starcraft" series, especially with the way the first installment is treated in this current generation.
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.
As I said, there are strong reasons as to why Blizzard did not take much advancements with "Starcraft 2." They applied some minor changes, regarding mechanics, and only seemed to make a major graphical overhaul. It was a little disappointing, I will admit, but not abundantly devastating. I also don't think it quite ruined the sequel but I cannot make a proper assessment because I've yet to run the released version of the game through it's paces.
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.
This is quite odd. I don't seem to remember repeating any sort of "mantra" about innovation. I, once again, agree with you that innovation is a vital part in game development but we've seen spectacular games come out that have utilized aged formulae and they haven't fallen flat. Those games didn't completely revamp their system or follow the trend of other development patterns and they proved to be successful. Why does a game have to be outrageously innovative in order to be successful? You seem to believe that games have to undergo some sort of "mandatory evolution" in order to be above average and I don't think that's necessarily correct.
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.
I concur with this as well. I don't understand what took Blizzard so bloody long to complete a game that simply appeared to have a few more units, some new features and the same graphics. I understand the maintenance of WoW and the closure of the SCG project slowed them down a little but it doesn't cover a twelve year gap.
I don't have an issue with Starcraft's formula. It is what it is. Other RTS' have different mechanics and features that I play, respect and garnish them for but Starcraft wasn't supposed to be an experience that was radically revamped. It would have perforated the strength of the fanbase and might have even brought forth a game that was worse that it's predecessor.
I think Blizzard could have put more effort into producing something better but I can understand why they did this. Building SC2 on a symmetrical formula as the original was something they did to play it completely safe. I believe Blizzard felt they would have been taking some rather large risks if they started to play with, change, or twist the old SC formula and I don't think that creating something safely was necessarily the worst move Blizzard could have made. In other words, I do agree with most of your points but not with such severity as you do.
Well, fair enough. I AM exaggerating to an extent- like I said before, this is by no means a bad game; there's just an element of personal frustration here. If I had a decent AI to play off against I would be having a lot more fun and there's plenty of scope in the single player. Also I understand, as mentioned, that this is not some sort of competence failing on Blizzard's part- they've done it this way quite deliberately, and they have certainly done it as well as it could be done. I think they could have trimmed back the resource modelling but even that would be sacrilege to the concept.
The mantra about innovation I mentioned is because a lot of people have defended this on the idea that innovation for its own sake is no good. My point is that that statement is obvious, but you cannot logically extend that to say that games don't need innovation. If that was not your point then I am sorry. I don't think SC2 had to be OUTRAGEOUSLY innovative, but its lack in that area, for skirmish mode, is notable.
im curious as to how the lack of medics shakes up the terrans early game strategies (medivac replaces them). MnM was pretty much the core strategy for holding the zerg at bay until the midgame where a terran player can techup and mechanize. i remember in the original starcraft early game zerg was the scariest thing around for a terran player due to how quickly zerglings could chop up a marine squad.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, fair enough. I AM exaggerating to an extent- like I said before, this is by no means a bad game; there's just an element of personal frustration here. If I had a decent AI to play off against I would be having a lot more fun and there's plenty of scope in the single player. Also I understand, as mentioned, that this is not some sort of competence failing on Blizzard's part- they've done it this way quite deliberately, and they have certainly done it as well as it could be done. I think they could have trimmed back the resource modelling but even that would be sacrilege to the concept.
Ah, of course. I too understand your frustration. I am quite an avid fan of the first installment but I'm also not a blinded fanboy. I'm a critical thinker and releasing something that is almost verbatim to the original wasn't exactly too pleasing for me either.
The mantra about innovation I mentioned is because a lot of people have defended this on the idea that innovation for its own sake is no good. My point is that that statement is obvious, but you cannot logically extend that to say that games don't need innovation. If that was not your point then I am sorry. I don't think SC2 had to be OUTRAGEOUSLY innovative, but its lack in that area, for skirmish mode, is notable.
That's true indeed. It did lack innovation and that was bothersome to me but I think if Blizzard began to tamper with their existing system, they may have done more harm than good. I think Blizzard knows this as well. Games do indeed require constant innovation but I don't think that they always require complete innovation. I'll use "Perfect Dark" as an example. There, you had a game that was almost exactly parallel to "GoldenEye" but it was better! Why? It used the same engine and formula yet created something created due to small tweaks and changes that made an even greater FPS masterpiece.
You cannot simply perform minuscule innovations each time you've generated a brand new game, though. There must always be something that increases the elaboration, quality and innovation of a game or the genre will stale very hastily. I think SC2 is a rare exception due to the status of the original game and the circumstances involved with it's thriving fanbase.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Mind you, Perfect Dark was exceeding the capacities of the N64, and in that regard I can certainly say this- this game will run on just about anything. Just like its predecessor (and including Macs, of course).
That's fair.
Regarding Starcraft 2, I hope they dim the power of the Protoss a little bit and increased the strength of the Terrans. If you've noticed, the Terrans victory ratio is almost pathetically low. They're constantly losing. Back to my previous point, I don't understand how Blizzard has such unbalanced teams when they've had twelve years to make it work with a meager three races.
I think one issue here is that the Protoss are very easy to use. I think- though I've hardly exhaustively played- they are the most straightforward race to build up a base-killing force with, which always means they will look strong in the early days. It is always possible that the superior subtleties of other races will become more apparent as time goes by.
From what I can tell, they have spent vast amounts of the development time tweaking and balancing things- removing units, drastically changing units and so on. Just goes to show- that sort of internal development just... doesn't work.
Starcraft aims to be THE most balanced RTS around. That's an extremely difficult task- the original Dawn of War never aimed to be that, and once it got to nine races it never had a chance... but that didn't actually make it less enjoyable, it just made it less of an e-sport.
I am not sure the effort/reward ratio of going for perfect balance is worth so much bother. Oh well, someone in the industry has to do it I guess.
Ultraviolence: I share your sentiments on PerfectDark, as well.
I still haven't counted out Star Craft 2, but, it doesn't look like that delicious jump that PerfectDark was for Goldeneye. I've been watching some vids on this game. If the game is very parallel to the first one with just slightly better graphics, I'll be a happy camper. 😐
Originally posted by Ushgarak
[BDon't get so touchy just because I have issues with your sacred cow.[/B]
😆
Unintentional pun. There is now cow level!
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ultraviolence: I share your sentiments on PerfectDark, as well.I still haven't counted out Star Craft 2, but, it doesn't look like that delicious jump that PerfectDark was for Goldeneye. I've been watching some vids on this game. If the game is very parallel to the first one with just slightly better graphics, I'll be a happy camper. 😐
😆
Unintentional pun. There is now cow level!
It's almost identical to the first game, besides some new units and the graphical update. It is more like an overhaul than a sequel. Again, I cannot make an official assessment because it is still merely beta access that I have.
gameplay wise it is much more akin to an expansion rather than a sequal. there are not nearly as many diverse changes in the gameplay such as can befound in DoW1 compared to DoW2 for example.
it pretty much is SC1 with better graphics and overhauled units, gameplay wise. the only exception is the maps and the map editor, the latter of which is supposed to be crazy advanced.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
gameplay wise it is much more akin to an expansion rather than a sequal. there are not nearly as many diverse changes in the gameplay such as can befound in DoW1 compared to DoW2 for example.it pretty much is SC1 with better graphics and overhauled units, gameplay wise. the only exception is the maps and the map editor, the latter of which is supposed to be crazy advanced.
"Supposed" to be? Watch this:
I've watched a few more vids on this game. It almost exactly as Ms. Marvel stated: retooled, revamped graphics, of SCI. Probably much better triggers, a new story, etc. I looked at an HD video of gameplay: the graphics are definitely a huge step up from Warcraft III. Looks very fluidic and delicious. I greatly look forward to this game, still.
But, it may not be the super awesome ultra game that I was expecting it to be.