Bored of SC2

[SlickR]

Yes.. TOO similar.

You are a moron.

Wolf3d - No pitch control
Doom - Multiplayer
Q - Pitch control
CounterStrike - New Gameplay, (semi) realism (single life/round)
CoD - weapon carry limit (more realism), squad control
Halo - vehicles
Crisis - damage thresholds, power suit, interactive environs.

Obviously the list doesnt list the pioneers in the field. These are just some examples. Your argument is rubbish. Those games were all innovations on previous generations. SC2 is not an innovation on SC1 at present. Sure its got a better UI, and some neat mechanics, but its still essentially the SAME.

Not that its easy to do, but add things like deforming terrain, bridges, caves, underground, etc. That would open up a plethora of possibilities AND be innovative! No one wants a different genre, we dont want SC2 = homeworld or something like that, but so far, nothing inspires.

I'd hardly call most of those innovations.
Maybe Wolfenstein for its graphics, doom for its multilayer, but all the others its just 1 or 2 different things.

Also halo wasn't the first game with vehicles.

Many games had vehicles in it, that were interactive and not just for visuals.
Yes maybe in some you might have not driven them, but you ride on them and so on...

Plus a lot of other games other than FPS, had driving vehicles, and no I'm not talking about racing games.
I'm talking about simulation, sandbox, action/adventure games, etc...

I also don't see how can anyone say SC1=SC2. Yes, it has some units from SC1, but even those have new abilities or upgrades or stats or whatever.
There are new units, new and/or improved buildings, new unit mechanics, new terrain mechanics, new buildings mechanics, etc... This all means there are new strategies, new tactics, different gameplay.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Not that its easy to do, but add things like deforming terrain, bridges, caves, underground, etc. That would open up a plethora of possibilities AND be innovative! No one wants a different genre, we dont want SC2 = homeworld or something like that, but so far, nothing inspires.

A lot of those things you mentioned will be in the Single Player in some way, and are not really even innovations, just new to the StarCraft Universe.

Again, the reason they're not in MP is balance. I don't see why thats such a problem that the Multiplayer aspect is kept similar, and that they save the innovative stuff for single player. I like that the 2 modes are kept very different, making the single player more worthwhile and the Multiplayer something to lean back on.

But I'm done arguing whether SC2 is innovative or not, I've tried to make that argument before and there's just no changing people's ideas.

I don't even have a Beta key and I am bored of SC2. Maybe it's just playing against the AI that has gotten old.

As soon as you say you're bored from playing a crack, the rest you say doesn't matter. Sorry.

[Gradius]

Why is it so hard to understand that SC and its sequel is fun because it's a competitive game? Are the mechanics kind of boring? By themselves, yeah. But who ever enjoyed StarCraft in the first place because the mechanic of clicking on Marine stim pack by itself was fun? That's basically the equivalent of what some people here are arguing. SC was fun because it was not just a competition between who could macro/micro the best, but also because of the psychological tactics used in-game.

Anyway, I've read dozens of user "innovative" suggestions throughout the years, and they've all been a bunch of nonsense that ignore game balance. Blizzard couldn't balance black hole or building infestation, which admittedly would have made the Zerg race alot more fun. They tried, but they couldn't. Could they be accused of "playing it safe"? Sure, but in the end it's probably not going to matter, though I guess anyone can just sit here and say that they should have tried harder to make it work.

[Triceron]

Yes.. TOO similar.

You are a moron.

Wolf3d - No pitch control
Doom - Multiplayer
Q - Pitch control
CounterStrike - New Gameplay, (semi) realism (single life/round)
CoD - weapon carry limit (more realism), squad control
Halo - vehicles
Crisis - damage thresholds, power suit, interactive environs.

Obviously the list doesnt list the pioneers in the field. These are just some examples. Your argument is rubbish. Those games were all innovations on previous generations. SC2 is not an innovation on SC1 at present. Sure its got a better UI, and some neat mechanics, but its still essentially the SAME.

Not that its easy to do, but add things like deforming terrain, bridges, caves, underground, etc. That would open up a plethora of possibilities AND be innovative! No one wants a different genre, we dont want SC2 = homeworld or something like that, but so far, nothing inspires.

I'd give Halo the credit of the shield system. The shields mechanic kept the game on the go. It got rid of the old HP/Armor system, made cover important, and did away with needing to memorize locations of health packs on a map. It made it a lot easier to jump into the game.

[TheEconomist]

@Gradius: If this forum had a "Thanks" button similar to StarCraft2Forum.org, I'd "Thanks" you.

Instead, I'll just say: "Thank you!"

[Aldrius]

building infestation, which admittedly would have made the Zerg race alot more fun.

Building Infestation IS in the game. It's just two separate spells on two separate units. :P

So I don't think balance was necessarily the issue. Though obviously neither was flavour... so... I don't know...

[Operatoring]

Blizzard is essentially doing what Bungie did with Halo. The first game was ground breaking and incredible. The 2nd game was a lot more refined, striking out the bad, and adding some new. The Third game further refined the second. The problem with Blizzard following this path is that Bungie pumped out 3 games in 6 years. This is an eleven year wait, granted they weren't designing for 11, but you no longer can rest on your laurels at this point. You have to break ground again and innovate. You have to wow us. Otherwise, you will produce a game that will be popular upon release, and die out a year later.

Imagine if Nintendo never made a sequel for Mario 1. Now imagine they began making Mario Galaxy, but tried to stay as close to Mario 1 as possible. This is essentially what Blizzard has done. You can call me a Troll because I don't suck this games dick, but non-hardcore fans will lose interest quickly.

[Iceman_jkh]

Hiru> Yes, I do think that some kind of terrain restrictions/control would be interesting. An idea (possibly DS's) proposed was for overpasses/bridges to prevent tall (eg: colossus) unit from pathing under, and potentially protect ground units beneath it from air attack. IMO this could open up a lot of strategy. Do I have a way to implement it..? no.

I'd hardly call most of those innovations.
Maybe Wolfenstein for its graphics, doom for its multilayer, but all the others its just 1 or 2 different things.

Also halo wasn't the first game with vehicles.....

Notice I said that I only chose examples, NOT the pioneers. The point was to illustrate that since Doom, things have evolved significantly (and for the better).

...Anyway, I've read dozens of user "innovative" suggestions throughout the years, and they've all been a bunch of nonsense that ignore game balance. Blizzard couldn't balance black hole or building infestation, which admittedly would have made the Zerg race alot more fun. They tried, but they couldn't...

Most of them ignore game balance (as you say) because they are race specific. I don't know if anyone ever said that it had to be 'race specific innovation'.

I'd give Halo the credit of the shield system. The shields mechanic kept the game on the go. It got rid of the old HP/Armor system, made cover important, and did away with needing to memorize locations of health packs on a map. It made it a lot easier to jump into the game.

Ok. No arguments here. As stated, I was simply trying to point out innovations in the genre.

[TheEconomist]

@SlickR: By your definition, then nothing (books, movies, games, art, philosphy, politics) has evolved at all.

[TheRabidDeer]

@SlickR: By your definition, then nothing (books, movies, games, art, philosphy, politics) has evolved at all.

Real innovation (which people seem to qualify differently, since I find SC2 relatively innovative but others dont) is hard to come by and is quite rare. I would definitely argue that philosophy, politics, movies and books havent changed very much. I know next to nothing about art, and games just havent been around long enough to say that they havent evolved.