Gifted for God SAKE!!! :(
Printable View
Gifted for God SAKE!!! :(
That is just your opinion. For me SC2 is far more interesting than SC1 because it has new units, much more spells, strategies and it is new game, and where SC1 is 12 years old game! It is close to perfect game and there is no doubt that SC1 is one of the best games I have played in my life, but enough is enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
And this is Beta, it will be far different, they will change a lot of things in original, other spells, units etc... And this is first game, there will be two expansions with again new units, different maps, strategies. Overall, I think that SC2 will be more successful game than SC1.
Reading your other posts in these forums, I get that you don't like SC2, it isn't attractive to you. That is ok, everyone got their own taste and opinion, but one thing that I don't understand is why are you still posting here when you actually don't care about the game?
What! It's my wall of text ^_^ See my signature!Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
I just had to register to post... I keep forgetting SCL keeps changing their forums...
Anyway, I heard of this one game where all you do is click, and click, and click... It's called Diablo 2... I hate it because all you do is click on a monster and then it dies. I have no clue why people play the game. I get bored with clicking instantly. It's like the game should play itself or something and I should just be able to watch it. Like I think a movie would be better.
.sarcasm.
Anyway, that's the argument I see from the OP. While I may not be in the beta or have the cracked version, mostly because I'm a goody two-shoes, I still see the fun in playing the game. Hell, the argument that you're bored of the "cracked" version is retarded. Of course you need to maintain your base, if you don't want to use the macro mechanics, don't. Build an extra hatchery, more SCVs, or another nexus. Oh wait, those are the things the macro mechanics changed... My bad.
The game play will evolve to new heights given enough time. Saying the Beta is the end all be all for game play is ludicrous. Hell, you know the internet is just a fad too.
Is Blizzard trying to radically change the formula from StarCraft 1? Honestly, they're not, the games do play pretty similarly to one another, which is what I think what they were going for.
Yes, there will still be the basic stuff like making resource gatherers, troops, and buildings, but I don't really think that's going to go anywhere. Even the little innovations that are in the game now were met by some pretty harsh criticism, such as
- 3D graphics; many complained that the game should be in 2d because the sprites were clearer to read than the 3d models
- Rallying workers to automatically start working; claimed it was dumbing down the game/favoring those with low APM
- A notification for idle workers (too much like Wc3/dumbing down the game)
- Many of the new macro mechanics (especially the Protoss Chronoboost and Zerg Queen), alot of people are still very skeptical to this in fact.
Someone who had a cracked version said that the AI in that was similar to the AI in the original SC, I hate to break it to you but I never found the AI in that to be particularly challenging. If that's all I was playing, I would be bored quickly as well.
If I might add, someone also said that Blizzard included a garbage AI so people would play with others. I think that was the entire point, that AI is just for familiarizing yourself with the buildings and units, it's no real training.
We changed it once when me moved from BF to here.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13thLegion
Not only are we in beta, but we essentially have 1/3 of the game. This isn't a new thought but it keeps me hopeful that some things I'd personally like added or changed may come in expansions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
All right, so I've only visited the news page for the past 8 years... :o
Before that I was everywhere! :D
OMG, I saw him use Terran. He used like every bit of tech to his advantage. He used nukes throughout the whole game, and switch from BCs to viking to counter the Collosi. It was... perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
EDIT:
OMG, another amazing game I just saw. This guy is incredible.
Oh, I remember years ago when some people complained SC2 was too much like the original StarCraft, while others complained at the same time SC2 was too different. Aaaaah, how much things haven't changed...
Simple fact - make it too much like SC1 and people, like the TC, will complain it's boring and stale. Make it too different from SC1 and people will complain it's alien and too much of a departure. Can't please everybody, so sorry you got the short end of the stick thus far TC.
For that exact reason... because I care about the game. Like many of you, I have waited 12 years for the successor to one of the most brilliant, creative and (hate to use the word) innovative games of that decade. I'm not here arguing, suggesting ideas, mechanics and tweaks because I have no concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Heh, Gifted's post reminds me of what I've always used to say about SC2: "If you want innovation in SC2, then you aren't going to find it in the multiplayer skirmish, but rather the singleplayer, Battlenet, and Galaxy Editor."
I know it might seem rude, but I really can't understand why so many people want innovation in skirmish multiplayer. The thing about RTSs is that they're ALWAYS going to be a niche genre simply because they are so demanding and competitive. No amount of innovation can change that, and Blizzard made it blatantly clear that they very much want SC2 to be demanding.
There's plenty of innovation in SC2 outside the skirmish mode, and that's what most casual players are going to be playing anyway. Casuals generally don't play skirmish mode because it's super demanding, so they'll usually gravitate to singleplayer or custom games, and those two features have PLENTY of innovation. It's not about Blizzard being lazy, they're just being smart about which type of people their game features should be catered to. Skirmish mode is generally played by hardcores, and hardcores generally don't want excessive innovation, and that's what they got.
Out of curiosity, Moradon -- 20 years from now SC3 comes out. How differently should it be?
"Playing against AI"
.....
....
...
..
=_=
This is so stupid. SC2 is about competitive play, playing against AI is intrinsically not competitive. Depth is created through interaction with a complex system of simple mechanics, that arises out of competitive play, out of "playing to win", something AI play does not stipulate. Depth has never been created through mechanical complexity, nor should it be. Games like Homeworld, primarily SP games contain mechanical complexity, static complexity that remains unchanging. SC2 is not Homeworld, it is not about mechanical complexity. The entirety of SC2 multiplayer is lost when your not playing in a competitive enviroment save the mechanical aspect, its intentionally least complex and compelling part.
edit:
owies I spilled (splashed?) energy drink in my EYE. wtf how does that happen :*(
StarCraft 2 will be the perfection of the mechanics. StarCraft 3 will be the one that needs innovation; not 2.
There's still more than can be done to better the mechanics in the original. StarCraft 2 will do just that. Once that's full fleshed out, Blizzard will move on to something else.
Few in 1998 would have said that SC1's mechanics were in need of serious revamp. By 2030, I'm sure there'll be plenty of mechanics in SC2 that seem outdated (let alone the macro ones) and a re-"perfection of the mechanics" will be just as justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Depends on how the technology evolves and whether it's applicable to SC's gameplay or not. If technology suddenly provided us with a high-quality virtual reality simulator, then I would definitely want it in the custom games at least. Whether it would fit into the skirmish mode itself is a tougher manner. I really can't say for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
"Weapon carry limit" or "Pitch" is not something that is innately innovative to anyone but a close follower of the genre. Nothing, nothing in that list is indicative of any degree of change except "Vehicles", "Multiplayer" and "realism".Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
Going by your definition of change, SC2 has it. Unlimited unit selection, macro mechanics, MBS, all dynamic shifts in gameplay from its predecessor.
----
Also I don't think theres going to be a SC3.
I beg to differ. When I was a n00b to SC, a few of my first complaints had to do with with the unit pathing and why workers couldn't automatically go to other mineral fields sometimes. I still love the game, but never denied it could be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
Sure, in 98, people didn't suggest revamps because they didn't look for those problems. There was no hype back then. SCI didn't intend on being a national e-sport, just a very unique and well polished RTS.
StarCraft 2 does intend on being a national e-sport, thus re-vamps are necessary, but not too extreme.
If they decide to return to the SC Universe one day after the trilogy, its going to have to be something different, or else SC2 would be considered a failure. SCI wasn't trying to perfect, thus is isn't a failure.
I've always found Blizzard to be one of the less innovative game companies around. What they do that makes them so popular is that take a good look and what works, what doesn't, and incorporate or cut accordingly, not stick blindly to a designing philosophy and punish players for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
In my opinion, this is why WoW was so immensely more popular than any MMO before it in history. It actually never did anything really ground breaking or new, but it did alot of things really, really well. Many other studios try to beat WoW in one category, but once players realize it's a one trick pony, the shiny gloss fades and they move on.
StarCraft 1 was actually considered a step back in innovation by some because WC2 had Air, ground, and Naval units, whereas SC only had the two former. I remember Total Annihilation also came out in the same time period which put more of an emphasis on having larger armies and was in 3D, and also incoporated physics relatively well. While some of this was cool-sounding and all, did it really improve gameplay for the player? Blizzard continued to succeed after the launch, but the studio behind TA was... not so successful.
The next step in SC games should be a first person shooter type. I remember hearing Blizzard now has the top two developers from the Dead Space series on their team.
We will be conected to pain sensors, all over our body, so we feel the pain that our units are going through, making us to take care of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
:D
I was further elaborating on your point which I agreed with. Once we've had out fill of StarCraft 2, it WILL be time for a revamp and if that doesn't come I will probably be disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
well, i haven't even started playing yet and I am only bored to the fact that they keep changing the cool units and abilities...
hahaha thats great.Quote:
Originally Posted by KadajSouba
As Cathon said, Blizzard games aren't innovative at all. But while releasing the game, they do it with good atmosphere and with so much hype, and also all their games have balance, or are a lot more balanced than games from different companies, and that is what makes Blizzard games so special and playable.