By Jim Rossignol on August 17th, 2009 at 6:53 pm.
More hyperbolic hyperbiff inbound from Blizzard, who are going to be causing fanmen to punch the air and whoop at Blizzcon later this week. It’s time for the Starcraft II trailers, and we have a CGI sequence with Zeratul up to his Protoss-business in some space-ruins – not Blizzard’s best, but okay – and then plenty of in-game footage, showing off storyline, environmental effects, and tiny men shooting each other unto death. Also robo-things with lasers for eyes, which usually go down okay in the Rossignol household.
Other SC2 news includes: No co-op campaign, and some kind of DLC, as well as a “trial”, which will be released after the game hits the shelves/internet.
Aw, thought there was a new cinematic out. That one’s a year or so old, no?
report
Well, it’ll certainly be on my wish-list for Christmas of 2011.
report
Is the cinematic old? I’d not seen it before. Apologies for reposting if it is ancient.
report
Am I the only one who can’t seem to get any kick out of starcraft 2? It looks a bit too, well, archaic compared to the newer brands of RTSs. I really like the DoW style of game where units are a group of multiple infantry rather than just one unit. Also it seems like too much of the same thing, and considering that thing will be almost 12 years old by the time this one is released, I think blizzard could really have done better for themselves.
report
No, Professor. I’m completely uninspired by the gameplay vids they’ve posted. The gameplay all looks very tepid.
report
Aye, it’s an old cinematic.
report
@Jim: That’s the same cinematic that they released at the last blizzcon, but I think Kerrigan’s voice is different. The one a year ago used the Kerrigan from SC1, where as this one seems to be the new voice actor.
report
Seeing Kerrigan again after all these years made me sqwee.
@Professor
“Also it seems like too much of the same thing”
Y’know, the more unreasonable set of fans is saying the exact opposite.
I find it funny.
report
At least Robert Clotworthy’s back as Raynor.
report
Psychopomp:
I know, that’s the problem with blizzard really. They haven’t done anything groundbreaking ever. All they’ve ever done was take an existing formula and master it to the point of a diamond sheen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is dangerous when a company stops thinking of new things and begins to stagnate into a massive cash machine (EA). Personally, I’m a huge diablo fan and I’m looking forward to diablo 3, but I really wish they went and made it slightly different, with newer gameplay elements, or world design or concepts. Not just a graphics tune up and no inventory system.
I really wish blizzard starts making original content soon, seems like they’re stuck in a vicious cycle of incredible money.
But I gotta hand it to them, they make the most dumbfounding CGI of any company, be it gaming or film or whatever.
report
“…and tiny men shooting each other unto death.”
Sadly, the unit size(and design) is so FUBAR it’s anything but. Haven’t seen such preposterousness on the battlefield since Dark Colony.
report
Does anyone honesly care about it’s age if it’s fun?
report
Blizzard has two unannounced projects in the works, one of them being definitely new IP (though an MMO, so I don’t really care).
As for SC2 being “archaic” – who cares? If the gameplay is still good, there’s no sense in making something different just for the sake of being different. Gimmicks are no substitute for gameplay depth, after all.
report
It looks pretty, but also pretty boring. SC1 with a graphics update. I still think DOW2 is the far superior for the effort to do something new. I wish Relic had had Blizzard’s time and resources for DOW2…THAT would have been amazing.
report
BOOOOOOOOOORING
Warcraft 1 gameplay, with flashy graphics. That’s why shogun total war was so awesome, too bad that series has turned to crap too.
I am not going to buy this, will instead look forward to having new takes on the RTS genre.
report
The infantry combat in the video was awful. The marines just stand there firing like robots until they win due to sheer numbers. It looks outdated compared to games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 where the player would have to take cover and use grenades/satchels/artillery to have a chance against the bunkers or heavy weapon emplacements against the living statue things.
On the other hand the Battlecruiser looks a lot more impressive now being able to barrage enemy swarms instead of having to individually pew pew every Zergling.
report
I’d been concerned (and still am a bit) that this was just going to be a graphical update of the original game with some new (and interesting-sounding) single player campaigns, but you know what? Who cares! With the RTS genre rapidly evolving into “baby’s first tactical wargame” it’s nice to see a game that emphasizes base-building again, even if I basically have played it before. If the campaign is actually non-linear in a meaningful sense and barring unforeseen unpleasantness, I’m probably in.
report
yep i think it’s a slightly different version of an old trailer
report
Professor: I certianly agree that Diablo 3 isn’t exactly the most imaginative and revolutionary game, but there are some improvements that go beyond graphics and inventory: the health orb thingies replacing the continuous stream of potions and the skill rune system could make D3 distinctly different from D2. Also, wasn’t there something about actual fighting companions, that is NPCs (the C very much upper-case) instead of the scores of random mercenaries?
report
It’s what Blizzard does, take a known concept and polish it to a mirror finish, then release it. It has made them more money than most other big Dev houses, so you can’t blame them for continuing the trend. Adding some neat new stuff is then just icing on the cake.
I must say that I’m only interested for the single-player campaign, as I’m far to slow for online play. And it’s looking damn good. ^_^
report
At least with Diablo they’ve changed SOME things. Warcraft 3 wasn’t just Warcraft II. WoW is the most successful MMO on the market. But Starcraft 2 is, as someone said in PC Gamer (I heard it from their podcast) just Starcraft with a “2″ stuck at the end. From what I’ve seen they’ve changed almost nothing.
report
I can’t really say I agree with the people who wish StarCraft 2 was more like DoW2. We already have DoW2. If I want to play DoW2… I’ll go play DoW2.
SC2 is turning out to be exactly the kind of game I want it to be, and I’m really excited for it (though I do have to admit that I’m looking forward to the mission editor even more. The editors have always been my favorite part of every Blizzard RTS, and they get more and more powerful with each new game, so I can’t wait to see what SC2′s editor is capable of).
report
@Vinraith: I agree. This is almost like “arcade RTS” compared to some of the newer games, but that’s actually a nice change. (Well, there’s C&C as well, but that’s never really managed to get multiplayer right, which Starcraft does)
report
A few of my friends recently got back into Starcraft proper, and after trying to play a few rounds with them it occurs to me that one shouldn’t underestimate the effect of basic logistical and UI updates.
I mean, things like being able to zoom out a bit further than SC’s tiny, tiny screen? Not being limited to selecting 20 units at a time?
And from the looks of things (and that hands-on a few posts down), units do things like organizing themselves based on type. Enough little touches like that, I think, could make a huge difference in taking the “wrestling with the clunky and outdated UI” factor out of what’s otherwise still a pretty decent game.
report
@KickassAssassin
Excellent point, I’d forgotten about the mods. Mods were a large part of the original Starcraft’s longevity for me, and virtually the only reason I played Warcraft 3 for any length of time. A new Blizzard mod platform for RTS is worth the price of entry all by itself.
report
radomaj: They’ve changed plenty with SC2, even in the multiplayer. There have been a ton of updates to the UI to make it more modern (unlimited unit selection and multiple building selection, for example). More than half of the units for each race have been replaced with new ones, there are a bunch of new mechanics like units that can jump up and down cliffs, warp-in for protoss that lets them get units out into the battlefield more quickly, etc. that will have a pretty big impact on the way the game is played online. The races are looking to be much more diverse in the way they play than they were in the original game (which is saying something, since StarCraft was the game that really revolutionized having races with uniquely different play styles in an RTS game, while keeping the game well-balanced).
report
I’ll take SC2′s polish and character over DoW’s or CoH’s innovation and bland atmosphere anyday. Besides, Blizzard looks to be doing plenty of innovation on the campaign side of things with between mission activities, perpetual upgrades, plot-relevant mission choosing, etc.
report
“There have been a ton of updates to the UI to make it more modern (unlimited unit selection and multiple building selection, for example)”
That ain’t modern, that’s pure basics, akin to a decent 1997 RTS UI which the original StarCraft (1998) completely missed for no valid reason. Good thing to see the sequel doing something a little better after more than eleven years but that still won’t take away the fact you’ll have to micro and babysit the shit out of every little thing just to appeal to hyped Koreans.
I like the new gameplay bits as much as anyone (the capturable radar, the jump jets, the obscuring terrain and such) but truth be told they’ve been done plenty of times before and in a much more significant, non-gimmicky way in other RTSs.
StarCraft II shouldn’t be DoW II but it shouldn’t be mostly a remake in multiplayer/skirmish either (hell, even a new race or a really big new gameplay mechanic would have been nice). Thank god Blizzard did learn that there’s more to do with singleplayer RTS campaigns than just the linear street of the first SC. Now if they would just realize the multiplayer game needs a radical shift as well…
report
I wouldn’t really say SC2 is just SC with a 2 on it, that’s a very simplistic view of it. A person can make anything sound dumb if they really tried. Soccer is just a bunch of guys running around kickin a ball. Trying to deconstruct something to its most basic and trivial components, without any context, has never been a valid form of criticism.
report
Oh dear, people are comparing apples with oranges once again. “Starcraft 2 needs to be more like Dawn of War 2″, “Starcraft 2 needs to be more like Shogun.” (WTF?) As KikassAssassin says, if you want to play those games then go play them, whilst those that want to play the Starcraft 2 can play that.
My only concern with this game is whether it will be able to sustain itself across the 30 missions with just a single race. The missions are going to have to be varied, rather than the standard RTS fair of build base in this corner and destroy base in that corner. The video looks like that is what they are striving for, as does the hands-on posted earlier.
report
Meet the new game, same as the old game.
I’m sure it’ll sell like hot cakes, and get Editors Choice™ thrown at it’s feet, and I’m also sure it’ll live up to Blizzards usual standards of high polish, but I just can’t help but wonder what all the fuss is about.
It doesn’t look particularly fun, or interesting in my opinion, and it just strikes me as kind of absurd that it’s taken 12 years for a massive developing titan like Blizzard to pump out a slightly better looking version of a primitive late 90′s RTS.
/shrug
report
I’m pretty excited. I loved Starcraft when it first came out, and had a blast playing with my friends. While there have been a couple disappointments about its release (no co-op, no lan play, needing to buy a whole new game for each class) in general I’m still really looking forward to it. I’m sad there seems to be such a negative reaction! Hopefully when it comes out it will be good so good everyone can jump back on the bandwagon. Right now it seems a little like a case of “Hate the Rich Industry Giant” is going on.
report
KickassAssassin is correct. There are hardly any mechanics left over from the original that have not been tinkered with. Unique death animations based on what type of unit kills the other. Varying mineral values to create higher value, riskier expansions. Line of sight doodads to create ambushes or scout terrain. Tons of new units and abilities plus new race-wide macro mechanics to further differentiate each side.
And it looks as if the single player campaign is probably going to have a much expanded army, keeping all of the units that were too experimental or unbalanced for competitive online play.
People are hating on this because it cashes in very successfully on the familiarity of the original StarCraft. “It looks like therefore it must feel like.”
Yes it will probably play very much like a base-oriented RTS. No one in their right mind would expect them to abandon that in favor of a DoW/CoH/Whatever system. Blizzard is not going to completely repurpose an old IP that way. That’s what new IPs are for unless they are branching into a completely different genre (WoW.) And they certainly aren’t going to completely rethink StarCraft from the bottom up as an RTS, not with the Korean esports scene watching their every move. And most importantly, knowing Blizzard, it will play better than the original. And all of the little touches you aren’t noticing now will make you stop and wonder why no other RTS in this vein ever did them.
And then you’ll remember it’s Blizzard and that everyone’s been desperately copying them since Warcraft II.
report
I just love how the gatherer are staying there, looking at nothing, when the lava rose and the player had to place them aside.
Just like every fracking RTS out there, the gatherers are dumb fuckers. blarg I say, BLARG!
report
Honestly, DoW2 and its supposed reinvention of the RTS genre is a load of bull. That a company can somehow be appluaded for decreasing unit sizes and removing base building only to replace that with hotkey spamming is beyond me. Starcraft is an RTS, DoW2 is DotA with capture points and less snappy controls.
report
To all the people who are going against SC2′s modernization: When I’m saying that SC2 should be more like DoW2, I mean that it should take a step forward towards unfamilliar terrain and do something original and fresh. DoW2 took a big step forward and while it wasn’t a masterpiece it certainly was a good start. I know I for one got sick of generic resource gathering war RTSs somewhere around 2005. And starctaft 2 is the definition of generic by the looks of it.
report
First of all, what good is starcraft 2, even if it’s gonna be the best rts ever if i’ll be 100 years old when it comes out? Seriously now, 12 fucking years?
Second, people who want this to be like DOW 2 do not want an rts, they want an action game. Dawn of war 2 had NOTHING new. The cover system was already there from CoH. All they did here was remove the buildings and cut out 5 races from the previous.
It’s called “streamlining” the gameplay to “focus on action” or whatever bullshit reason they gave people. That’s the evolution of RTS games? Seems like a step backwards to me.
It’s so sad that the only choices are either the same formula from 15 years ago or cut 50% of the normal formula and add some flags all over the map so you can run around feeling like a game of tag and call it TACTICAL and improved gameplay.
report
Has anyone noticed the Zerg? Now that’s what I call a nice improvement.
The Zerg-rush at about 01:45 looked nicely organic, rather a flood of Zerg flowing around those buildings taking them with them than a simple attack. Really gives a nice impression on how this race works, weak as single but in large numbers like a large, terrifying flood. Great stuff :)
And I see that the comments given after you issue orders are still the same annoying crap. If I hear that snotty ‘ooutstaanding’ one more time I’m going to get sick.
That’s why I always turn these acknowledgments off..can’t it just beep to signal that you just clicked somewhere?
report
p.s.:
Why Starcraft 2 will be better (or at least way more fun) than any given RTS? Because of the Zerg. All the other WW2/pseudo-realistic stuff is just boring..more like the news on tv and tactical maybe..but more fun? Without the Zerg? Naaah…
report
Alez, DoW2 was more of a real time tactics game than a real time strategy game in that sense. But going from that to calling it an action game is kind of pushing it, don’t you think?
report
This gets a big MEH from me.
Blizzard may be the original masters of RTS, but the genre has evolved and left them in the dust from what these videos show. Of course it will be insanely popular and make a ton of money, but that’s not always an indication of good design is it?
report
Yes professor, it is pushing it. A better term would have been half an RTS. But then the phrase would have sounded stupid : people don’t want an rts, they want half an rts.
report
@Alez
If you think DoW 2 isn’t deep, you didn’t play it.
You may think you did, but you didn’t.
report
First of all, what good is starcraft 2, even if it’s gonna be the best rts ever if i’ll be 100 years old when it comes out? Seriously now, 12 fucking years?
Uh… if it’s literally the best RTS game ever, I doubt anyone worth listening to will care if it’s old. People still play the original, and that was far from perfect. And it won’t be old, anyway, will it? It’ll be new, by definition, when it’s released. And it’s still clearly being worked on, and not something that’s been sitting idle since 2005. I really don’t get what your point is here at all.
report
Cinematic was rather “meh” but the in game footage looks awesome.
@Anthony Damiani LOL :)
report
Sinister agent, i meant I WILL be 100 years old. Not the game. As in, the’re taking their sweet ass time to make the game, i’m sure it’s polished and shit but what good will that do to me when i’ll be too old to care about games? That’s my point, they should hurry the fuck up already.
Psychopomp then i’m a moron that needs buildinz and shits to blows up cause i likey them explodey things and not to run around the map and spam “retreat” every 2 minutes.
Also, chess is deep yet we prefer rts games because they have more stuff to fuck around with. An rts with identical sides of just 4 unit types could also be deep, but wouldn’t you want more? That’s what i’m saying.
report
@Professor: Blizzard tried something original with Warcraft 3 and learned their lesson there, I think. I remember reading an article where one of the designers talked about how the original design was a lot more similar to Sacrifice, with a third person camera on your hero and no bases at all. That got scrapped because they realised that it wasn’t going to sell nearly as well as if they just made a traditional RTS. Still, they kept the heroes and experience and items and whatnot within that traditional RTS gameplay, and you know what? A lot of people complained about exactly that aspect. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that Relic are doing well with Dawn of War – it’s nice to see that developers can take risks and still achieve good sales – but I really can’t blame Blizzard for the direction they’re taking with Starcraft 2. People have been trying to reinvent the genre since C&C first came out, and the graveyard of “brave new RTSs” is just too big.
report
@Alez
Complaining that DoW doesn’t have buildings, is like complaining that TF2 doesn’t have grenades. You’re completely missing the point.
And if your games of DoW could be accurately summed up as “run around, spam retreat,” you had some really, really shitty games.
report
SwiftRanger says:
“There have been a ton of updates to the UI to make it more modern (unlimited unit selection and multiple building selection, for example)”
That ain’t modern, that’s pure basics, akin to a decent 1997 RTS UI which the original StarCraft (1998) completely missed for no valid reason.
Thoroughly agree. I remember playing the demo of Starcraft back when it came out and after months of Total Annihilation I couldn’t see what the fuss was all about. Now I can look back and understand how impressive the balancing of the three sides was and the story certainly was better than TA’s “eternal war blah blah” garbage … but man I could not get past how clunky those controls were. Micromanaging resource collection? Select only a couple of units at a time? Was there even any waypointing? That stuff was basic already.
report
Alez: You know the game hasn’t been in development for 12 years, right? They’ve only been working on it since after Frozen Throne was finished, and they stopped working on it for a while to help finish up WoW sometime between then and now, too.
The game will be out next year (hopefully early next year, since their original plan was to have it done by the end of this year). I’d rather they take their time with it to make sure it’s a solid game when it comes out. It may be frustrating to wait so long, but it works out so much better in the long run when a developer actually takes their time to finish their games rather than push out a buggy, broken game like so many developers/publisher do.
Also, there’s no such thing as being too old to care about games. ;)
report
It looks awesome. Nothing you negative people say is true.
Judge the game by what it’s trying to be. Not by what it’s not.
report
@Psychopomp – Not to mention that DoW 2 actually DOES have buildings. Buildings you can hide in, buildings that produce units (For all sides in multiplayer and just for the enemies in Single player, although you could kind of consider drop pods buildings but not really)
Using retreat in DoW 2 is useful since it makes your characters faster and reduces the damage done to them. It allows you to REALLY hit and run enemies since you don’t get totally chewed up durning the running away part :P
report
@KikA$$ A$$A%%IN – Like Spore? OUCH!!!
report
@Jad
Yes, there was waypointing.
report
Dude, i’m not arguing over the fun factor or whatever. I’m saying Dow 2 was a step backwards. You cannot prove to me they evolved or added ANYTHING new here.
If you have fun playing this castrated version of dow 1, by all means, go for it.
report
@Alez
I…
I don’t know where to start with that statement, so I’ll keep it short.
No. Just, no.
report
ok…i hope we can still be friends. But i’m not playing anything with you, you have bad taste in games.
report
@$3R0ND@L – OUCH!!! You sure got me there!!1
Wait, no you didn’t. What are you even trying to argue? That a developer taking their time to properly polish a game is a bad thing because of one example of a game that was in development limbo for a long time and ended up being a disappointment? And it was a disappointment not because it was an unfinished or buggy game, but because it just wasn’t the kind of game most of us where expecting/hoping it would be from the previews.
I’m not saying every game that was in development for a long time has ended up being a masterpiece. Obviously that’s not the case. But you can’t argue that a lot of games get pushed out before they’re ready, and it’s refreshing when a developer like Blizzard waits until their games are polished before they release them.
report
@Alez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
report
It’s pretty funny that while no one has actually said that Starcraft 2 should use the same game mechanics as Dawn of War 2, some people have taken it that way and argued that DoW2 isn’t a “real” RTS (obviously making it a bad game), as though games have to strictly follow the tenets of their genre. Having every game using the same copied formula won’t be boring no siree.
The comments were thoughts that Blizzard should expand or diverge in some way from the original Starcraft’s game mechanics, in the same way that CoH diverged from the standard RTS formula or how DoW2 diverged from DoW’s formula. That’s not to say that Blizzard aren’t necessarily doing so with SC2; they seem to be putting a lot of thought into the multiplayer component. However, the single player campaign video in this article isn’t particularly innovative compared to what the original Starcraft or any similar RTS already offered. It looks like a step backward from Warcraft 3.
report
I spelled your name diffrent cause I’m not work not trying to be l33t or offensive just trying to dodge fitlers and what not :P
I was mostly just joking and mocking people that mocked Spore and other games that are in development hell for years, nothing against you personally :P
From what I’ve seen in the review linked to above SC2 is going to be a very good game. I find that when a game is delayed for a long time to make it polished and good it normally ends up BEING very good ( Say Half Life 2 and SC2 and Diablo 3) When it gets delayed because of funding problems or coding problems ect it normally ends up as being a really poor game with a lot of bugs ect.
I really can’t give a final verdict on SC2 until I myself play it. Like others have said it is pointless to compare it to DoW2 or any other game, this is starcraft we’re talking about. Based on the hands on though it does sound like they’ve taken some lessons from CoH and DoW 2 because the units arrange themselves on the battlefield on their own (to defend the civilians and to group together so it is easier to select them ect) Also in the vidoes the zerg move fluidly instead of the herky jerky motions from Starcraft where it looked more like 40 squares trying to fit into a 2 square wide hole defending by 1 tile wide marines and some 2 tile wide tanks ect. Everything looks a lot more fliud and realistic.
I’m guessing that the Zerg and Protoss campaigns also will have something diffrent but similiar for their in between game bases that will make them each unique. (Maybe the zerg don’t get upgrades for their units like the humans, maybe they get mutations that are diffrent, say each unit can only mutate down one path and there are several for each unit allowing each play through to be diffrent because of the way you evolved your selected units. So on player could have zerglings that focus totally on numbers ( say mutations that allow 4 or 5 zerlings to hatch per egg) while another player can focus on making the zerlings faster and attack faster. He’ll have fewer of them on the battlefield at any given time but they’ll be much faster giving him a diffrent advantage, then maybe a third player can upgrade his zerlings so that they can survive longer under fire making a smaller number of them more valuable without increasing their production cost. Each variant of zerling would play diffrently and each would have their own strength and weakness while still fitting into the over all theme of the Zerg.
report
Blizzards logo designer loves to put roman numerals behind titles for game sequels.
Look awesome though!
That Protoss armor is bad ass. Looks very “WoW inspired” though.
report
Alez, I really don’t understand how DoW2 is a step backwards. They took the genre and changed it from what it was almost exclusively (basebuilding and unit building) to something new (solely unit building) they took good concepts from CoH and pushed them forward, while making it even more extreme. I really do think that it just adds a whole other side to the old genre. You really haven’t played the game well if you think all there is to it is just running away.
For starters, it’s one of the few games that really make me feel like I’m doing heavy damage when I’m flanking the enemy. Starcraft and the likes never gave me a feeling of warfare but rather some strange combat simulation. DoW feels a lot more risky in the sense that you really FEEL your soldiers getting hit. I don’t know how to put it, but something about getting shot down by a heavy bolter squad makes you feel the bullets hitting your soldiers, and it’s not pleasant.
report
I know exactly what you mean Professor. I think it is because your units are pretty small and losing even 1 solider can make a big difference in that units ability to project power. Units aren’t really easily replaced on the battle field either unless you have a hero that can call down reinforcements on battle field (Say a Tech Marine that can put down a teleporter) Which makes having transports that can provide reinforcements all that much more vital in combat. I really LOVE DoW 2 for these reasons. You get very attached to your troops (At least I do) I love playing Eldar and using Wraith Lords along with supporting guardians and a falcon to back them up. Those suckers can seriously adapt to most situations and repair themselves while the falcon protects your guardians so they can capture control points and repair the wraith lords if they get into to much trouble. Also LOVE the Guardian’s ability to create cover any where on the battle field and I always leave a few points open so they can put down a force shield.
report
“They took the genre and changed it from what it was almost exclusively (basebuilding and unit building) to something new (solely unit building)”
I would’ve said it was only new in 1996, but apparently Nether Earth did that back in 1987, way before Z.
report
Serondal: Gotcha. No offense taken. :)
GB: I don’t know how you can say that, what with the SC2 single player campaign having KoTOR-esque “story mode” segments between each mission, branching missions that you can choose your path through, and the ability to customize your units and upgrades so you can get a different experience each time you play through the campaign. It also sounds like they’re running with a lot of very unique ideas for mission designs that should help prevent the campaign mode from becoming a boring series of traditional RTS missions. Of course, being a Blizzard game, it should also have an excellent storyline to tie it all together.
It’s funny, because most of the comments I’ve seen about SC2 being too much like the original refer to the multiplayer, and most people seem to be in agreement than the single player campaign sounds like it’s going to be pretty interesting.
report
pkt, I know, the concept of units alone isn’t new to the world, but it’s definitely new to the current market. Most games are either full building (basebuilding and all) or predetermined unit management (ground control, dota and clones). I didn’t say it’s a revolutionary move historically, I just mean it’s new to today’s market, which in all fairness is much more powerful than it was a decade ago.
report
Z! That game was amazing (but sadly part of the “brave new RTS” graveyard I mentioned). I considered making a comment about it predating Dawn of War earlier in the thread, but as you show, everything is predated by something. :-)
report
pkt-zer0:
You’re being facetious, nearly any “new” game concept has likely been used in some form previously (think prior art). Nether Earth would have been released in an entirely different era of PC gaming and Z was relatively obscure, thanks in part to Red Alert being released near the same time.
The idea is that a sequel should expand or improve upon the original game.
report
Also, as history has shown and will continue to show, doing something new is worthless if you won’t be remembered for it and if you won’t succeed in making it in the long run. For instance, a few months ago there was this talk about a new RTS concept with time travel and all that jazz. There’s an entirely revolutionary concept for not only RTSs but just about any game – genuine time travel. Now, if these guys are gonna keep going the way they are right now, it’s going to end up as a convoluted impossible to control wreck, instead of getting the respect it probably deserves, and then in another 10 years actiblireliA will release a brand new installment of Dawn of Starcraft and introduce some very gimmicky time travel gameplay mechanics, and they will be remembered as the ones who made it first, because that’s the way it goes.
What’s the point of being the first man to do something if no one remembers you for it?
report
Professor you could replace Dow 2 with Ground Control 2 and get the same thing you said. Minus the superb CoH cover system, of course. But fuck it, i just needed a good rant, sorry, no more offtopic from me.
report
KikassAssassin:
In terms of the single player meta game it actually sounds like they are expanding on ideas used in DoW2 (non-linear/optional missions, customizable/upgradable squads), that’s not to say it is the first game to do so.
My complaint, related to the linked video is that the player throws a blob of marines at the target and wins without very much tactical requirement. Is there anything that I could do better playing the mission besides possibly microing the medics to spam heal?
report
“The idea is that a sequel should expand or improve upon the original game.”
And SC2 does that. You only criticized the single-player campaign, but surely the added non-linearity in mission progression and upgrades counts for something? Or that supposedly every mission has its own variations on the ruleset?
report
“The comments were thoughts that Blizzard should expand or diverge in some way from the original Starcraft’s game mechanics, in the same way that CoH diverged from the standard RTS formula or how DoW2 diverged from DoW’s formula.”
Why? Is this necessarily better or more fun? Does this lead to a deeper, stronger tactical metagame or more strategic variety?
Given that StarCraft has been played professionally for something like a decade now, it seems rather obvious that you don’t need to break from this formula in order to achieve a huge depth of gameplay.
Sure, you can do so for the sake of being original, trying something different, trying to reinvent the wheel. Whatever. Command and Conquer seems to think going this route will solve their issues. Maybe it will. But I’m pretty sure Blizzard knows what it’s doing. It made a strategy game that completely outlasted everything else in its genre, one so popular and so well thought out that there is, to this day, a following for it.
My problem with comments like these is this: Do any of the games you mention have anything like the competitive following of StarCraft? Or can you prove that their mechanics offer a deeper, more satisfying gaming experience?
On the first you can’t. On the second it’s a matter of opinion. But certainly Blizzard doesn’t need to steal anything from Dawn of War or Company of Heroes to make a great game.
Everyone always makes the same complaints every time a new Blizzard game is about to come out: “this is the same as the game we played before with a new coat of paint that’s all.”
Yeah, no duh. Don’t expect hamburgers from the Easter Bunny or jelly beans from MacDonald’s. If you haven’t figured out this is what Blizzard always does, please crawl out from that rock you’ve been living under.
Do I wish Blizzard was doing stuff with more original IPs and new kinds of gameplay? Of course. They’re very talented. But honestly, it’s StarCraft II. What were you expecting? The Spanish Inquisition?
Blizzard never revolutionizes. They don’t make the ballsy genre breakers and they never have. They evolutionize. They find something that’s been done over and over again and they find a way to make it fresh and absurdly playable. Then they polish it so that everything else in the category looks like bat turds by comparison. Then they support it so well after launch that yeah, five years down the road there may be some better looking titles but you’ll never get an experience equal to whatever they have on offer.
I find it hard to believe people are claiming they won’t buy this game. It’s a freaking Blizzard game. It could be about tying shoes and folding sticky notes and it would still play better than anything you’ve touched in the past five years.
report
Speaking ill of Starcraft 2 is like suggesting an imperial understand how their technology works in Warhammer 40k, BLASPHEMY!
Now having gotten that out of the way and getting towards my point, I did not enjoy DoW II, but I did enjoy Company of Heroes.
Honestly, having played starcraft later on (this year really, and yes, it was TINY on my screen, laptop screen at that) and looking at the videos, it doesn’t seem all that new, and that’s not always a bad thing, but thinking about it, StarCraft came out back in 98, this is 2009, and it’s going to be released in 2010, and I’m not saying age is bad, I still play Deus Ex and on occasion DoW, I’m saying, they could have done more to the IP. They could have come up with new ways of doing things, exploiting the technology we have now vs then and to some extent they have, but the units still preform like they did back in 98 (Space marines at least), they stand and shoot things till they die or they are ordered to do something else. They do not seek cover, they do not retreat, they don’t do anything except what you tell them to, which consists of following routes, circling defense points and shooting things. Also, single units, I know some people like this feature, but they should at least act like a group while they’re in a cluster like they usually are, taking up positions. Looking at history, it’s like watching the Greeks battle it out in agreed locations,marching straight forward into battle and little else. This is early greek warfare mind you, between city states, not later like at Thermopylae or the Spartan/ Athens conflict. Romans attempted to copy the Greek tactics, but found that when they didn’t agree on a location to fight (which they never did, and still don’t) they would often have trouble winning by just hording men into block formations and having them confront the enemy head on. So they invented a multi-line system where a line of soldiers would attack and retreat behind another line of tower shield wielding defensive soldiers and a ranged group would move to throw javelins before a second melee line came up to confront the enemy. Lines functioned as groups, and broke down when individuals didn’t follow orders. Massing units and chucking them at the other guy’s mass of units is largely the basis of older RTS games. You can do it in DoW, you can win, sparingly, with it in CoH, but try it in World in Conflict, and you’re a dead… lieutenant with a god-like view of the battlefield, and no, I am not saying that all games should be like WiC, I like base building and stuff, I just think that unit interactions can afford to be improved, and in WiC, they weren’t really improved, the concepts were imposed by limiting you to a few units (or squads) and making you work with team mates to function as a single army. That said I enjoy WiC when I have a cooperative team on my end and the other team does as well, if not, it simply becomes a free for all till someone gets a nuke, then the other team is screwed for a while.
report
SC2 Single player campaign will probably be entertaining and have some interesting missions, I think a lot of people can agree on that.
Multiplayer, however, is going to be a twitchy-click fest that will reward rapid-fire ADD clicking speeds, and especially reward you for how fast you can get around the clunky UI to get the mass of cartoony units to work miracles.
I guess it boils down to the styles of RTS that people enjoy. Personally I like to be rewarded more for strategy and tactics in my combat, rather than resource optimization, build-orders, and twitch-click speed. Just my preference.
report
curse the lack of edit function, thou deniest me the ability to go back and separate the majority of my post into paragraphs; vile creature, I will hunt you down…. I will beg the admins to hunt you down and destroy you, with the creation of an edit button.
report
@ Chemix.
Absolutely. It’s not that SC2 is bad per se, it’s just that I’ve gotten really used to units acting more intelligently over the last few years, and I’m seeing quite the lifeless, static units from SC2 so far. They may be pretty colors and animated well, but they don’t -behave- like a lot of modern RTS units naturally do.
report
I read your post just fine Chemix no worries ;P
report
DoW2 is closer to something like syndicate than a RTS isn’t it? Except the maps are dull enough to be in a traditional RTS game. Which is where I felt it just didn’t work. Since your only focus is on the squad, the maps could have been amazing, interactive, dynamic, multi-level masterpieces! So it felt a bit lazy to just dump your squad on a flat RTS map.
I’m playing through Starcraft at the moment and I find I’m more interested in the story than the game itself (which is a bit boring at times). Would that be a common opinion?
Shogun is still top for me.
report
Why? Is this necessarily better or more fun? Does this lead to a deeper, stronger tactical metagame or more strategic variety?
Are these rhetorical questions? If the changes were well designed and implemented then of course it would be better/more fun/deeper. When I said “the same way” I didn’t mean “the same changes”. What changes should be made is of course a matter of opinion.
Given that StarCraft has been played professionally for something like a decade now, it seems rather obvious that you don’t need to break from this formula in order to achieve a huge depth of gameplay…..My problem with comments like these is this: Do any of the games you mention have anything like the competitive following of StarCraft? Or can you prove that their mechanics offer a deeper, more satisfying gaming experience?
The criteria for a game to be popular competitively isn’t necessarily the same as the criteria for a great single player or casual (non-”professional”) multiplayer game. By that argument does that mean CounterStrike is the most indepth, most satisfying FPS ever? Should a CounterStrike 2, if Valve ever produces it, stick to the same tried and true formula as the original? I wasn’t criticizing the multiplayer component of Starcraft 2 anyway; the videos I’ve seen of it look promising.
On the first you can’t. On the second it’s a matter of opinion. But certainly Blizzard doesn’t need to steal anything from Dawn of War or Company of Heroes to make a great game.
I never said anything to the effect of “this game should take x feature from DoW/CoH and use it”.
I find it hard to believe people are claiming they won’t buy this game. It’s a freaking Blizzard game. It could be about tying shoes and folding sticky notes and it would still play better than anything you’ve touched in the past five years.
I never said I wouldn’t buy it. I’ve played every non-WoW Blizzard game since Diablo and thought they were all great. That doesn’t mean they were perfect in all aspects and it doesn’t make the developer exempt from criticism.
report
@Taillefer: I think it’s a fairly common opinion. RTS games have always had this bizarre schizophrenia where the singleplayer experience is essentially a defensive base building exercise that bears no relation to the skirmish/multiplayer game, and Starcraft is no different. It does look like they’re trying to break out of that mould with SC2 though, which can only be a good thing.
report
“They do not seek cover, they do not retreat, they don’t do anything except what you tell them to”
That is not necessarily a bad thing. In Battle Realms (a game I really love, btw), for instance, it took considerable effort to stop your units from doing stupid things on their own. Sure, better AI might help with that, but even that still won’t act in an optimal way in every situation – I don’t think that’d go down well with the competitive types.
“So they invented a multi-line system where a line of soldiers would attack and retreat behind another line of tower shield wielding defensive soldiers and a ranged group would move to throw javelins before a second melee line came up to confront the enemy.”
So, leapfrogging siege tanks and microing vultures, basically.
“Multiplayer, however, is going to be a twitchy-click fest that will reward rapid-fire ADD clicking speeds, and especially reward you for how fast you can get around the clunky UI to get the mass of cartoony units to work miracles.”
I don’t think they’ll have you fight against the interface (not intentionally, anyway), considering they went ahead with automine and MBS.
report
Don’t forget that there was going to be War Craft Adventure game which was cancelled. Blizzard wouldn’t continue and sell SC2 is they didn’t think it was going to offer anything of value to their customers.
Blizzard Announcement — 22 May 1998
Press Desk: Blizzard Cancels WarCraft Adventures
Blizzard wants to take a minute to respond to the Warcraft Adventures petition that is circulating on the Internet. First, we want to express our gratitude to the Warcraft fans that took the time to organize such an effort. We recognize that the cancellation of Warcraft Adventures has disappointed some of our customers, and we appreciate that they have shared their opinions with us.
Secondly, we want let you know that stopping development was not a decision that was taken lightly. It was a hard call to make, but each of us knows that it was the right choice. The cancellation was not a business or marketing decision or even a statement about the adventure genre. The decision centered around the level of value that we want to give our customers. In essence, it was a case of stepping up and really proving to ourselves and gamers that we will not sell out on the quality of our games.
And finally, we hope that Warcraft fans will consider our track record and trust our judgement on ending the project. The cancellation of Warcraft Adventures does not signal the demise of Azeroth. We have every intention of returning to the Warcraft world because there are still chapters to be told. We will keep you informed as we announce future Warcraft plans. “
report
@ pkt-zer0
“I don’t think they’ll have you fight against the interface (not intentionally, anyway), considering they went ahead with automine and MBS.”
That does sound promising. I really liked Starcraft, and I’m not trying to be negative per se. I really do hope it is fun.
Its just that watching a pitched battle in say DOW2 can be quite an awesome spectacle, with the melee fighting and the units being knocked around to the ground, getting up, finding cover, etc, all as scripted actions within combat.
The battles I’ve seen so far in SC2 look, well, kind of silly, like the units aren’t actually -touching- one another at any point, ever, even during melee. I don’t even see tracer fire on the marine weapons if I’m remembering correctly.
I guess I just wish I could see some of those things in SC2, since I think Blizzard would do a great job animating these sorts of actions and behaviors…. But perhaps the fast pacing of the game prevents that? Hmm. Maybe it’s just a pacing issue, actually, SC2 looks to be a very, very fast game, and all the little unit behaviors/animations would probably work against quick responses? People already get upset in DOW2 because of sync-kills slowing their units down (although I think they are always fun to see :) )
report
I love in it DOW2 with my units grab hold of a random eldar or space marine and tear them to pieces (like say a Carinfex impaling one of them and then trying to get him off his stabbing thingy :P) Or when a chain sword animation plays where the guy cuts him up and then puts the chain sword in his gut and pulls the trigger causing blood to fly every where as the other units screams. DOW 2 seems to be a lot more cinematic.
I also love watching missles launching in Supreme Commander , following them on the map until they smack into an enemy unit and cause it to explode or until it gets shot down by tactical missle defenses ect or watching Battleships launching long range fire and then watching it hit enemy units bunched up at a long range.
From the hands on it seems like SC 2 is going to have some of these moments but probably not as many. I do remember enjoying marking things with my Ghost and watching the nuke take off and land causing massive damage and also loved watching a fleet of Protoss Carriers get to business with swarms of fightings flying every where :)
report
@GB
I think we misunderstand each other. I was not specifically addressing you in that post but I will try and do so in this one.
“If the changes were well designed and implemented then of course it would be better/more fun/deeper.”
If you change the rules of chess, does that make it a better game? Isn’t this just a path to differentiation, not improvement? Not better or worse then, just different?
Do you see what I’m getting here? I think there’s something logically askew when one says they want something different because different (when “well implemented”) is automatically better. If the changes improve upon the ideas of the original, then it’s making better. If the changes throw out the ideas of the original, then it’s making different.
A DoW/CoH ruleset is throwing out ideas from the original StarCraft, not improving upon them. That’s why others in this thread have been scrambling for the vocabulary to put these games in their own paradigm as they rightly should be.
Changing UI functionality, or unit functionality, while keeping the overall structure of the game would be making it better then, not different. Which is what Blizzard has done.
Adding something like a cover mechanic, capture points, a different scoring system or victory conditions, etc. – these are all things outside of that formula (at least in how we’ve seen them implemented so far.) So they are not necessarily better or worse. They are just different.
What I’m trying to emphasize here is that these are two qualitatively different kinds of changes. One kind refine the original. The other alter it so as to render it a different species altogether, a hybrid or chimera, a new game.
“The criteria for a game to be popular competitively isn’t necessarily the same as the criteria for a great single player or casual (non-”professional”) multiplayer game.”
Fair enough. But Blizzard games continue to dominate the NPD sales top twenty years and years after their release. That, to me, indicates popularity. People are buying it.
“By that argument does that mean CounterStrike is the most indepth, most satisfying FPS ever?”
A different argument here but I would argue, yes, for a certain kind of player, it would appear so. Or at least, most satisfying so far.
The same can probably be said for other long-lasting FPSes. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory for example, still has an active and competitive player base. I think Tribes 2 is still going strong in some circles as well.
These are probably not catering to the same exact type of appeal, but whatever they’ve done to last so long shows they’ve done it extremely well.
If something is being played by a significant fan base years out from its release despite newer shinier competitors, then I would argue it is succeeding better at satisfying. It is keeping its appeal and remaining enjoyable for longer than its rivals. There are other factors at work but that is the gist of such a statistic.
This isn’t an argument against innovating either, as you seem to think I’m implying. I’m just disagreeing with the statement different = better. Innovative is what it is; some people will enjoy it because the old paradigm has gotten stale, others will not because it lost the spirit of the original.
Blizzard takes conservative steps in this way and it has so far been successful within its conservatism. That’s not a statement for or against their position. It’s just a reality based on their track record and sales figures.
“That doesn’t mean they were perfect in all aspects and it doesn’t make the developer exempt from criticism.”
Nor should it nor was I implying as such. I am saying it’s nuts to expect Blizzard to toss out core pieces of their successful formula because their track record shows they are loathe to do so. If people were expecting base building to be absent or keyboard commands to be nonexistent in the sequel, I would like to kindly inform them that I am, in fact, a well-off prince from Nigeria in dire need of a bank account through which to exchange some funds.
report
“I guess I just wish I could see some of those things in SC2, since I think Blizzard would do a great job animating these sorts of actions and behaviors…. But perhaps the fast pacing of the game prevents that? Hmm. Maybe it’s just a pacing issue, actually, SC2 looks to be a very, very fast game, and all the little unit behaviors/animations would probably work against quick responses?”
You hit the nail on the head Arturo. Blizzard has been extremely careful not do anything that makes the screen appear overly “busy” in multiplayer or takes away from the pace of the game. If I remember correctly, I think they were even simplifying animations for the mutliplayer units to make everything look more uniform.
I think a lot of the stuff you mention would look cool and probably, as you say, a whole lot more like real warfare. And knowing Blizzard, they could pull it off with some real style.
I doubt they could do it while capturing the heart of original though. The limitations of the original StarCraft engine also created a style of gameplay they are trying to recreate here and I think it is one, unfortunately, that is incompatible with the sort of cool touches you are talking about here.
The upshot is that they appear to have embraced this kind of experimentalism a lot more in the single player and supposedly the map editor will let you do anything you want in it.
report
Am I the only person who wants to play this game because of the campaign? I would love to see how the story unfold. Competitive battling-wise, not so interested.
report
GB: You also have to realize that those videos are from the first few missions in the campaign, where you don’t have many units available to you yet, and the maps are designed to be very easy to ease new players into the game.
There isn’t much you can do with a group of Marines assaulting a bunker, but if you back up those Marines with Siege Tanks, Dropships, Hellions, and Banshees, and put them into a more difficult situation that’s designed to really challenge you, and your tactical options become much, much deeper.
report
I do not want to get involved in the proverbial slugfest that is this thread, even though I hold a strong opinion in the matter. It is very hard to resist :)
However, would anyone enlighten a glossary-challenged swede as to what this ‘CGI’ thingymajig means?
report
@Tore: Computer Generated Images ? aka, the computer generated special effects in movies altho the term is sometimes used for prerendered cutscenes in games
report
The cinematic means… some ancient creatures, possibly gods, didn’t play through SC1′s singleplayer, couldn’t get it to work, are returning, and they have something to do with the zerg, which IIRC were created by the Protoss or this ancient race, Xevallah or something.
As for whether or not units having some manner of intelligence or autonomy would be a good idea or not, yes, units making stupid decisions can get annoying, I know that in particular from the Total War series where units have brains made of mush, having defeated sieges using my king alone, his bodyguards dead, by rushing at the enemy and retreating so that they would flee.
However, taking a look at how it works in say, Company of Heroes, it’s not so much autonomy as it is the illusion of it, or a more controllable illusion than the normal one. There are points set up for cover pieces and certain parts of map terrain where units can be stationed to cover. Units will run to the pre-determined spots depending on what points we select ahead of time, not one by one, but in formation clusters. Often, you’ll just right click and they’ll end up taking some kind of suitable position because the map has been designed to make the units seem intelligent. A similar system is employed in World in Conflict, though it’s not so much about cover as line of sight for firing. Men of War, also uses this set up, not as well as CoH, but it’s become fairly standard for units to have pre-determined positions and not to just form a big cluster and shoot in a given direction. Is it a part of the original formula of Star Craft 2? No, but Physics wasn’t a feature of Half Life 1, but it became a major feature of HL2 (and it’s episodes, all with some form of see-saw puzzle). It’s an advancement in AI and scripting that makes units seem intelligent. The environments of SCII look like a series of flat levels surrounded by indestructible set pieces and a series of different heights for the levels in the map. Flat maps with flavor set pieces are something that was barely acceptable a few years ago, but Starcraft II is unscathed by it’s lack of terrain. That said it looks nice with the worms popping out of the ground and such.
What bothered me, other than the marines, was the the CEVs or what have you, sat there as the lava level raised until told to go elsewhere. When facing imminent death, there should be a variable percentage of retreating to a pre-determined safe area, one that is not covered in bubbling liquid hot magma. It would preform a “dice roll” for when or if the unit would retreat, 60% on warning, 20% as the magma begins to actually rise, and 20% attempting to leave after the magma starts to damage them. You’re statistically rewarded by moving them yourself, but they feel more life like in that they try to avoid death. For drones it makes less sense, since they’re robots, and Zerg… well, they’re biological machines.
report
Dawn of War 2 diverging from the core gameplay mechanics from the first one is the reason why the game is garbage. How is it a sequel when you`re removing a whole bunch of features under the bullshit term `streamlining` which every crappy game dev is using these days. I think most hardcore fans of the series would have been happy if they kept the same gamplay but tweaked and improved the graphics.
Now the Starcraft gameplay formula has already been proven to be a winner why would they want to change it and experiment on completely differen`t gameplay. It`s like if Madden NFL 2010 they decided to extend the football field to 150 yards. There approach is to tweak it and fix some of the shortcomings of the first and refine it which is the best approach. There not gonna go totally left field to appease people who are probably not even fans of the original Starcraft.
report
So, You change it too much, it sucks.
You don’t change it enough, it sucks.
Gamers *beg* for innovation, and something different. When devs give them the same old, they bitch about it.
When devs give it to them, they fucking bitch about it being different. Bull. Fucking. Shit.
And I’ll say it again. If DoW2 isn’t deep, then TF2 is also a “castrated” piece of “garbage,” designed by “crappy game devs.”
Fucking double standards.
report
Lanster27:
No, you’re not. If I ever get the game I’ll never be touching the multiplayer, it’ll be solely because of the singleplayer campaign. Loved the plot of the first game.
report
CRY SOME MORE!
report
This is what most people don’t seem to get:
Obscurity is not complexity,
Ease of use is not ease of play and
Streamlining makes a game more approachable.
More and more games are going towards a sort of “easy to learn hard to master” game style, where the difficulty curve allows for an “okay” player to do well enough, but to get from “okay” to “great” takes some good practice and technique. This goes for TF2, which is just about the simplest game to get into, and just about anyone can score an eventual point if they try hard enough, and similarly for DoW2 (but to a lesser extent, it is an RTS after all). Even if you suck at DoW2, you can still help your war effort somewhat. This isn’t a bad thing, it’s much more approachable. Compare TF2 to CS, or better yet, TFC. Both these games are predominantly run by a bunch of mega players that do things you can’t even imagine doing. The difficulty curve is insane.
I know that I, as your average low skill RTS player, was thrown off by the punishing nature of old RTSs, with their huge build order lists and base management and constant switching between base and frontline. It was, quite frankly, scary for me. DoW2 lets me focus solely on unit tactics and positioning, and I’m not too bad at it.
Same thing goes for grenades in TF2. I joined some TFC matches back in the days when TF2 wasn’t released yet, and all those grenade jumping maniacs scared the hell out of me. TF2′s streamlined nature makes for a much better gameplay.
For multiplayer games, streamlining is the way of the future. By making the gameplay as close to the core as possible while not making it too “raw” you can let in a lot of gameplay elements that would previously have been too much for the game to handle, and at the same time let the player focus on other things.
report
I don’t regularly buy new versions of chess either, to be frank.
Star Trek chess looks novel enough to tempt me, though. Even though I don’t play chess.
You know what I’m saying?
report
gameplay looks rather old-fashioned and dull. But the polish and graphics look nice.
I can’t imagine playing it for more than a few levels though, the weird micromanagement, static gameplay and repetitive responses all look like they’d get old fast.
Maybe the story will be interesting enough to make me play through the levels.
report
I liek how the drones that “escape” the lava stand right NEXT TO the collection point with hands full of ore.
You wouldn’t see that happen in Rise of Nations (<3)
report
Mmmm rise of nations, the one of the most awesome RTS games ever made. to bad they made that stupid Rise of Legends game instead of making rise of nations 2 (then maybe trying something new)
report
I thought Rise of Legends was good, but Rise of Nations was pretty mediocre.
report
@Serondal
Amen. Rise of Nations stands as one of only two RTS’s I’ve ever played that has really stood the test of time. I’m still playing it to this day, and I owned it when it was brand new.
The other one, incidentally, is the (slightly inferior to RoN but still very good) Dawn of War: DC (and occasionally SS, but I can’t really get behind that one as a classic).
report
Interesting videos, but I think we all know competitive multiplayer is where it’s going to be all at.
But you will need to play through the single player to get to that stage and from what I see it looks fun.
report
“The criteria for a game to be popular competitively isn’t necessarily the same as the criteria for a great single player or casual (non-”professional”) multiplayer game.”
“Criteria” is in the plural; either use “criterion” to indicate singular, or change “isn’t” to “aren’t” in line with its plural subject.
In my opinion, the best games are simply the most polished, end of story. Sure, innovation’s great and ought to be praised where present, but focussing only on innovation is very short-sighted. In 10 years’ time, no-one will find it easy to remember that a given game was the first to showcase a given feature, and it won’t *feel* new to play at all. However, a perfectly polished game will *always* be perfectly polished (barring patches, &c…), and will be enjoyable for that reason in perpetuity.
I therefore assert that one ought to hope for innovation, but [i]demand[/i] polish (even to the exclusion of the former). For this reason, Starcraft and Warcraft III are the two best RTSs yet made, and unpolished innovators like DoW2 ought and shall be forgotten quickly.
In my mind, I associate a cheap-thrills, what’s-the-newest-pretty-thing-I-can-play audience with the console market in contrast with the longer attention-spanned audience found on the PC where 12-year-old games are the most popular/respected/admired (SC, Counterstrike, DotA’s getting there).
If you consider yourself a true PC gamer, then I would suggest that you start to appreciate the option with a longer attention span (and thus, one might say, more developed intelligence): polish, over innovation.
report
“I therefore assert that one ought to hope for innovation, but [i]demand[/i] polish”
Please use the proper syntax for style markup; the result should be demand, not [i]demand[/i]. I’m not sure how you missed that when the markup instructions are right above the comment submit button. Perhaps you didn’t proofread carefully enough. Boy, being pedantic about minor grammatical or markup errors sure is fun and contributes to the discussion.
Now, onto your actual points:
In 10 years’ time, no-one will find it easy to remember that a given game was the first to showcase a given feature, and it won’t *feel* new to play at all.
Yeah, no one remembers Rainbow Six as one of the first mainstream FPS games to feature realistic weapon damage; or Half-Life as the game that advanced FPS narrative past “there are monsters in this level and you want to shoot them”; or Thief as the originator of the stealth FPS; or Company of Heroes as the game that popularized the importance of cover (i.e. not having your troops stand still in the open firing at a bunker like turrets). Since these games don’t have disproportionately large multiplayer followings they were clearly commercial and critical failures.
However, a perfectly polished game will *always* be perfectly polished (barring patches, &c…), and will be enjoyable for that reason in perpetuity.
Besides a small hardcore demographic (i.e. people still playing QWTF to this day) players will generally migrate to a sequel if it is sufficiently good compared to its parent because they want some kind of advancement or change to the game. The change could be something fundamental like gameplay mechanics, functional like the interface, or superficial like the graphics.
For this reason, Starcraft and Warcraft III are the two best RTSs yet made, and unpolished innovators like DoW2 ought and shall be forgotten quickly.
Please explain how DoW2 is unpolished. You certainly can’t argue that on the multiplayer side, considering how a major multiplayer rebalancing has been released recently based on player feedback. You’re taking popularity and longevity as an absolute indicator of merit. I think Warcraft 3 is a better game (that is, more fun) than Starcraft. Since Starcraft is more popular does that make me wrong?
In my mind, I associate a cheap-thrills, what’s-the-newest-pretty-thing-I-can-play audience with the console market in contrast with the longer attention-spanned audience found on the PC where 12-year-old games are the most popular/respected/admired (SC, Counterstrike, DotA’s getting there).
Wait, I thought console players were the ones who bought sequels that were essentially yearly graphics/roster/weapon upgrades and PC gamers were the refined connoisseurs of electronic entertainment that appreciated innovation and experimentation. I must be getting my baseless stereotypes mixed up; I’ve got to stop skipping the Two Minutes Hate.
If you consider yourself a true PC gamer, then I would suggest that you start to appreciate the option with a longer attention span (and thus, one might say, more developed intelligence): polish, over innovation.
Translation: If you don’t agree with me you are stupid, not a “true” PC gamer like the rest of us, and you probably are ugly too.
report
Lol @ TRUE PC GAMER!
report
Kudos to GB for referencing 1984 and kicking an elitist’s ass
report