PDA

View Full Version : I have never liked a Blizzard game.



TixyLixx
12-02-2012, 07:05 PM
I just don't understand the popularity of their games, they always play and look so dated compared to other games around them. Even Starcraft back in 1998 felt dated to me while I was loving games like Total Annihilation, Starcraft just felt like a copy of Command and Conquer from years back. World of Warcraft just felt liked a dumbed down MMO for the masses, they just turned it to easy mode and from what I've heard it is even more dumbed down today. Starcraft 2 just felt so bad, the story was cliche and cheesy and there was no innovation in the game what so ever. It had people raving about the in between mission adventure game thing but it was just a static image that you could click on and characters would say really uninteresting things. Like Company of Heroes has come out and made so many advances on the genre and Starcraft 2 just felt so dated compared.

I just don't get why people love their games so much, they're never innovating and are usually rip offs of other titles or IPs like Warhammer. What's worse now is since joining Activision they seem so smug and always try to rip off their customers with overpriced content on their store and prices that never seem to go down. Valve to me seem like their care about their community, always do crazy offers, they innovate all the time and they have a work place where they do what they want, there are no set rolls. Blizzard to me feels so corporate now and it just feels like what is the next scam we can pull to get loads of money.


I just don't get their games and it is so frustrating to see millions of people loving them and I have no clue why. It's like Halo or Call of Duty, I just don't get what is fun about them games, I'd much rather play Counter Strike or Battlefield.

Althea
12-02-2012, 07:08 PM
OH NO PEOPLE LIKE STUFF I DON'T WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

Um... people like Blizzard, so what? People are allowed to like Blizzard. Plus, for all their faults, they don't abandon a game after six months.

deano2099
12-02-2012, 07:41 PM
Polish.

They make stuff that plays well and is play-tested to within an inch of its life. Perfectly designed experiences, with little room for player-creativity but a fantastic ride.

Yes, most of their stuff is derivative, but they derive from only the best, then polish it up to be even better than the source.

Heliocentric
12-02-2012, 07:49 PM
Lost Vikings was incredible.

victory
12-02-2012, 08:01 PM
Starcraft and its sequel are pretty much my all-time favorites, and Lost Vikings was good, but I have never understood the appeal of the other Blizzard titles (though I acknowledge they are extremely polished). Warcraft was fun for a little while because it was the first "modern RTS" that made it to market with multiplayer, but within a year C&C stomped all over it by delivering good mechanics in addition to the tech.

TsunamiWombat
12-02-2012, 08:10 PM
Companies like Blizzard and Bioware are popular because of polish. What they make, reguardless of ingenuity, originality, or quality is exceptionally well constructed. In before hyperbolic haters saying BUT DA2. I don't feel like internet arguing today, thats why i'm avoiding the sunday papers

Drake Sigar
12-02-2012, 09:05 PM
I understand. The only Blizzard game I've ever enjoyed was Warcraft 3 (Lost Vikings would no doubt be on the list too if I had played it). The loot craze spawned from the Diablo really confused me, though apparently the gaming world didn't share my lack of interest, and now this feature is found throughout numerous games today. *Shrugs*

archonsod
12-02-2012, 09:07 PM
People are allowed to like Blizzard.

No they're not. It's one of the sub-clauses in SOPA.

Heliocentric
12-02-2012, 09:16 PM
(Lost Vikings would no doubt be on the list too if I had played it).

http://www.gamershell.com/download_4658.shtml
Demo

Kadayi
12-02-2012, 09:23 PM
I've never been drawn in by Blizzards games (the cartoon stylizings just aren't to my tastes), but I must admit the level of polish to WoW did impress the hell out of me when I played it for a month. The whole thing about 'here's a manual, but you won't need it' was completely true.

coldvvvave
12-02-2012, 09:57 PM
I have never liked a Blizzard game since Blaackthorne.

Flint
12-02-2012, 09:59 PM
The whole thing about 'here's a manual, but you won't need it' was completely true.
Speaking of manuals, a lot of their manuals make for genuinely interesting and entertaining reading. Gameplay information meets heavy amounts of lore, every unit/spell/skill is given a description that actually draws from the game's world rather than just explaining things in a cold, mechanic way. The Diablo 2 manual in particular is one of those things that make me miss manuals.

-

I wouldn't call myself a Blizzard fanboy but when I look back upon their history, I find it very hard to deny their quality work and the role a fair number of their games have had in my life. Both Diablos (and especially the second) are excellent games, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft have been two of the very small group of RTS games I've actually enjoyed and WoW is/was one of my alltime favourites and a very important game for a very long time. Like others have said, their forté isn't necessarily innovation (although the gameplay mechanics from their RTS games and Diablo 2 have had a huge impact on other games, so I wouldn't really rule them out of that club either) but the sheer perfectionist polish they give to the games which is IMO just as, if not even more important. A grand amount of love, work and detail go into their games, resulting in games that work like clockwork and have excellently refined gameplay. Add to that the amount of work they put into the backgrounds of their games, story and lore etc, which matters for a lot of people. None of this means that everyone has to like the games naturally; personal tastes are personal tastes.

Vandelay
12-02-2012, 10:03 PM
with little room for player-creativity

The fact that the meta-game of Starcraft is forever changing, particular at the top levels, I would say that is not always correct.

Agree with everything else though. Absurd amount of polish, and perfecting tried and tested gameplay style is why they are so popular. You could certainly compare them to Valve in many ways.

Rii
12-02-2012, 10:04 PM
I have never played an Elder Scrolls game. Please, somebody pay attention to me!

Nalano
12-02-2012, 10:34 PM
I liked Starcraft, such as it was, when it came out, but I never went online, because online was full of howling monkeys.

I never actually bought Diablo 2, but I'm sure I would have gotten my money's worth in its style of beat-em-ups.

I got Warcraft 3 and liked poking flouncy elves until they said funny things.

I spent four and a half years in World of Warcraft - not concurrent - and that's something I still don't admit to my real life friends. Since I got in on the ground floor, so to speak, I got to carve myself a niche and stick with that community for quite a while. It got to be where the game was secondary (a glorified chatroom with a fancy GUI), but it killed MMOs for me in the end.

That said, I don't buy any of their shit now. Why? Because their games were worth it to me when I bought them, and now they're not.

Lewie Procter
13-02-2012, 12:24 AM
I've never liked any Blizzard games either, except for Blackthorne, that was the shit. I did like Starcraft ages ago, but I wouldn't really play that type of game these days.

I just don't think they make games to my tastes, I don't really think it's anything wrong with their games.

LGM
13-02-2012, 12:45 AM
I have never liked a Blizzard game since Blaackthorne.
Did they do Blackthorne? That's an incredible game, even today! I haven't played it in a few years, is it on GOG?

Heliocentric
13-02-2012, 12:49 AM
I have never played an Elder Scrolls game. Please, somebody pay attention to me!

Go play Morrowind, make a hat that slowly burns the wearer to death and give it to people.

Play oblivion, make a spell that causes paralysis on yourself and cast it while jumping off landmarks. Additionally cast water walking on a horse, make a massive area effect 1% chameleon and enraged spell which makes everyone turn invisible and kill each other.

Or you are just being flippant and :-(

vinraith
13-02-2012, 12:49 AM
I haven't enjoyed a Blizzard game since Diablo 2, but that's not really saying much.

Nalano
13-02-2012, 01:19 AM
Go play Morrowind, make a hat that slowly burns the wearer to death and give it to people.

Watching videos satirizing how stupid Bethesda NPCs are is far more fun, to me, than actually doing anything to the NPCs themselves.


I haven't enjoyed a Blizzard game since Diablo 2, but that's not really saying much.

Well, what did they make post Diablo 2? Warcraft 3, WoW and Starcraft 2. Yeah, probably a good idea.

vinraith
13-02-2012, 01:26 AM
Well, what did they make post Diablo 2? Warcraft 3, WoW and Starcraft 2. Yeah, probably a good idea.


Like I said, it's not really saying much. I'd preemptively add D3 to that list, as well.

Nalano
13-02-2012, 01:34 AM
Like I said, it's not really saying much. I'd preemptively add D3 to that list, as well.

Well, RMT... eeeuuuughh

vinraith
13-02-2012, 01:41 AM
Well, RMT... eeeuuuughh

Exactly.
..

Nalano
13-02-2012, 01:51 AM
It's of my opinion that RMT markets kill any game they're attached to, and the only exception that comes to mind is EVE, but EVE is pretty much the exception to everything it's part of.

Voon
13-02-2012, 04:06 AM
@OP

Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaa- so? Personal taste, bro. Don't have to make a big deal about it. And Blizzard games being popular isn't the issue when they made some excellent games pre-WoW. Some are good, some bad. But, I tell you what. Since Blizzard merged with that evil corporation that milks their videogames to death if its popular, Blizz have been going downhill, since. I loved Warcraft III but despise WoW. So, there

Juan Carlo
13-02-2012, 04:26 AM
I've never loved any Blizzard game (so I am often confused by the fanatic devotion they inspire), but I did like Warcraft 2 and 3 fine at the time. Starcraft is OK too, but just seems massively overrated. There were like 1,000 RTS in the late 1990s exactly like Starcraft. Sure Starcraft did perhaps refine the gameplay of an RTS better than any other, but it was still kind of dull to me.

Plus, I've always hated Diablo and all Diablo clones. There's just something about the naked "clickiness" of the interface that puts me off. When I play a Diablo-like I never feel like I'm actually controlling a character as much as I'm just clicking on things. Yeah, I know most PC games just boil down to clicking things in the end, but with Diablo the clicking just seems so much more apparent for some reason. Maybe because there's no other elements of player control to offset this--it's just all frantic clicking.

I have absolutely no interest in WOW so can't really comment on that.

DigitalSignalX
13-02-2012, 07:04 AM
Everyone is free to dislike Blizzard games of course. *shrug* I'm sure we can all find titles that we'll be at odds with for whatever reason. They unarguably polish the crap out of their stuff, and I've enjoyed SC1/2 and D1/2 but really disliked WoW despite its polish. D3 is my most anticipated game of the year, even before ME3.

I didn't like the original Deus Ex. Oh Noes! It's cool.

pkt-zer0
13-02-2012, 09:57 AM
they always play and look so dated Is this a "novelty over quality" argument? It could be argued that this sort of thinking is dangerous because then game designers would rather do something different, even if it's worse. Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that doing something really well, even if it has already been done before, is still a worthwhile pursuit. Sure, I'm biased because I'm working on a game that's basically intended to be to SSF2T what SC2 was SC1, but still.

Namdrol
13-02-2012, 12:11 PM
I think one of Blizzard's core strengths is that they make games that have high replay value. Sure there are stories and whatnot, but the actual game mechanics are so strong, and the stories so optional, you can play them for years. People play sc, wow, diablo, etc for years without getting bored.

Of course, if you don't like the game mechanics they've created, you won't enjoy the game because there is no epic story with over the top cgi cut scenes to keep you entertained and motivated to keep clicking.

Blizzard games are closer to pure games like poker or football then interactive event movies, like say SWTOR or Mass Effect.

Nalano
13-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Blizzard games are closer to pure games like poker or football then interactive event movies, like say SWTOR or Mass Effect.

I've never been burned out on poker or football, but I'll never play an MMO again. Likewise circa 2000-era RTSs.

BillButNotBen
13-02-2012, 01:24 PM
Warcraft 2 was pretty fun, even if it was just a more polished version of Warcraft 1 (which was Dune2).

None of the games they've made after that have really appealed to me, but that's more down to the style of game they make. I got bored of standard RTS games soon after Warcraft2, I find loot-clickers like Diable totally unappealing, and I have no interest in MMOs... so it's hardly surprising I wouldn't be that interested in Blizzard games.

I always have the slight suspicion that their games are sucessful based more on reputation/hype than content... but then again lots of other "great" development studios have been flopping hard or have closed, so they must be doing something right.

Let them carry on doing that and play something interesting instead.

Gozuu
13-02-2012, 03:22 PM
Warcraft III & World of Warcraft are to me the two best games I have ever played.
They even override Unreal Tournament & Quake III:Arena as well as CS1.6 for me.

I have never played Final Fantasy or The Elder Scrolls. They've never appealed to me.

Don't ya think its got more to do with the fact that Blizzard games are mythical fantasy aka. Orcs & Humans with Elves and other beings battling with magic rather than the fact that you don't like how the games play out? :)

Tei
13-02-2012, 07:22 PM
I was a CNC fan, before it turned into something else (It all started with Red Alert, so I blame Red Alert for it).

So to be Warcraft was always "the CNC clone" or "enemy". At the same time, I have never found the appeal of WoW, and Starcraft is a game I played somewhat around 2002, but is done. I am not a sports person, and people turn multiplayer rts into sports. I really hate what sports do to games, kill all the fun to have in games. Soccer is way more fun wen is not player as a sport.

So, I somewhat never liked Blizzard, I never hated then, but was always talking to different type of people, not to me.

Sic
13-02-2012, 10:26 PM
I think one of Blizzard's core strengths is that they make games that have high replay value. Sure there are stories and whatnot, but the actual game mechanics are so strong, and the stories so optional, you can play them for years. People play sc, wow, diablo, etc for years without getting bored.

Of course, if you don't like the game mechanics they've created, you won't enjoy the game because there is no epic story with over the top cgi cut scenes to keep you entertained and motivated to keep clicking.

Blizzard games are closer to pure games like poker or football then interactive event movies, like say SWTOR or Mass Effect.

I basically came here to say this.

Blizzard games aren't always easy to like if you're only scratching their surface and go by how they play initially.

They are, however, about as deep as you can go if you're looking for perfected game mechanics and interfacing with the raw steel of computer games. Other pure games are a good example of similar experiences, but I would also say things like hardcore platformers and fighting games are in the same category. They are types of games that get better the more you play them, because the game experience changes with your skill. It's more about experiencing the sensation of flow than it is experiencing a story or rudimentary functions of mechanics in relations to a progression. It's like playing an instrument. If you've ever jammed with good musicians and felt that you were in each others fingers, you know what I mean. That's SC or SC2 for you. Outside the fighting game community, they are pretty much the only truly living competitive games around right now, after CS 1.6 died.

It's pretty hard to put into words why certain games have the quality that games like SC, CS, D2 and Q3 have. You simply need to play them for quite a few hundred hours to understand how deep the rabbit hole actually goes. They're the antithesis to TES games, basically. TES games have non-existing to horrible quality game design, Blizzard games have near-perfect to perfect (purely in terms of game mechanics).

As for not liking them, that's perfectly fine, but there is no denying that Blizzard design games to be played with a fervour pretty much nobody else expects people to play with, and if you do, you really are in for a treat.

vecordae
13-02-2012, 11:03 PM
Blizzard's games are polished, but I rarely ever found them engaging. Starcraft was fun (at the time), but, much like Nalano, I found online play tiresome. My biggest criticism isn't with the mechanics or presentation, but with how silly the plots to their games were. It is, perhaps, an unfair complaint, but after seeing all of the work and effort they put in the manuals for their games, I expected more from the plot than an uncomplicated arc consisting of "All of the good guys either get corrupted or die. If they don't all die, then they probably will in the sequel."

TixyLixx
13-02-2012, 11:12 PM
Companies like Blizzard and Bioware are popular because of polish. What they make, reguardless of ingenuity, originality, or quality is exceptionally well constructed. In before hyperbolic haters saying BUT DA2. I don't feel like internet arguing today, thats why i'm avoiding the sunday papers

That's a point I don't like Bioware games either all their games have the same flaws.

- Cliche story
- Poor animation
- Linear and bland level design
- Bad combat

etc.

SWTORs good points aren't even the MMO part, so you have to play through the boring MMO parts that feel worse than 2004 WoW to get to the Single Player parts... just make KOTOR 3!

TailSwallower
13-02-2012, 11:20 PM
The funny thing is, I don't know if I ever really enjoyed Diablo 2 much, but holy shit that fucker was addictive (yes, only double-swears can describe it). I actually contemplated having another go at it, but then reminded myself that it's a massive timesink and it doesn't feel worthwhile in the slightest.

But I loved Blackthorne, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3 (to a lesser extent), Starcraft and even Starcraft 2. Would never touch WoW or D3 with a ten foot pole though, because of above mentioned addictive elements (not to mention real money spending issues).

Heliocentric
13-02-2012, 11:25 PM
Warcraft 3 custom maps are one of the most ignored fields if gaming, yes dota, but everything else? It was the motherland of tower defense, freely downloaded maps being better than most tower defense games.

And other little bizzarities too, like resident evil maps and role play servers.

It's a strange walled garden of content.

Voon
14-02-2012, 12:11 PM
Warcraft 3 custom maps are one of the most ignored fields if gaming, yes dota, but everything else? It was the motherland of tower defense, freely downloaded maps being better than most tower defense games.

And other little bizzarities too, like resident evil maps and role play servers.

It's a strange walled garden of content.

Oh, God. Yes. Loved the tower defence maps in WC3. Incredibly addictive, I'd say

Jams O'Donnell
14-02-2012, 01:46 PM
I really enjoyed StarCraft and WarCraft 3. I tried WoW for a couple of months but couldn't get into it, and that's about it for my Blizzard experience. I'm vaguely interested in StarCraft 2, but I don't seem to enjoy RTS games very much these days.

Skalpadda
14-02-2012, 02:06 PM
I've never been burned out on poker or football, but I'll never play an MMO again. Likewise circa 2000-era RTSs.

On the other hand, the average MMO player seems to spend a couple of hours every day playing. I don't know anyone who plays sports or card/board games recreationally who play as much as that.

Feldspar
14-02-2012, 02:11 PM
On the other hand, the average MMO player seems to spend a couple of hours every day playing. I don't know anyone who plays sports or card/board games recreationally who play as much as that.

Mainly through organisation, I would imagine, it's very easy to log onto an MMO, you don't need other people (locally that is). Probably more comparable to watching TV.

QuantaCat
14-02-2012, 02:15 PM
By the way, didnt they spawn tower defence as a genre?

sonson
14-02-2012, 03:10 PM
Warcraft 3 had me captivated.

3 very different but perfectly balanced asymmetrical factions (wasn’t so common at the time), a brilliantly polished campaign with decent story line and a variety of different missions and ambition which was well realised. The Necromancer being able to raise dozens of skeletons, the tree thing turning into another thing, those little details were unlike anything else that was around at the time, they went beyond the scope of two dudes hitting each other and little men coming out of buildings. There was character in how they played, acted, interacted with the player.

Honourable mention also goes to Age of Mythology for doing much the same, three entirely different races with different powers, monsters and game changing effects such as Ragnarok.
Both games went from being resource/military centric scenarios as were most RTS's at the time and transposed themselves into being a sort of Ray Harryhausen wonder being acted out in front of you, that you could both shape and react to.

That’s how Warcraft 3 made me feel. Other Blizzard games I’m indifferent to.

Kodeen
14-02-2012, 04:48 PM
That's a point I don't like Bioware games either all their games have the same flaws.

- Cliche story
- Poor animation
- Linear and bland level design
- Bad combat

etc.

At this point I must step in and say "MDK2" and then step out again.

Subatomic
14-02-2012, 06:01 PM
Warcraft 3 had me captivated.

3 very different but perfectly balanced asymmetrical factions (wasn’t so common at the time)...

Are you somehow confusing Warcraft 3 with Starcraft? Warcraft 3 had four factions, and those weren't nearly as asymetrical as the races in Starcraft. Every unit in Warcraft 3 had a rough equivalent in each other faction (like Mortar Team = Catapult = Meat Wagon = Ballista, though it sometimes varied like Night Elves having a ranged unit as their first combat unit). In Starcraft... not so much. Sure, there are some roughly equal units here too, but a lot have no equivalent, like Zerg having no big flying unit like Battle Cruisers or Carriers, or Terrans having no melee unit at all. Also, Siege Tanks.

Skalpadda
14-02-2012, 06:17 PM
There were only three factions in the original WC3, the undead were added in TFT. The races also had fairly different strengths and weaknesses with different heroes and strategies so I think it's fair to call them asymmetrical.

Serenegoose
14-02-2012, 06:31 PM
There were only three factions in the original WC3, the undead were added in TFT. The races also had fairly different strengths and weaknesses with different heroes and strategies so I think it's fair to call them asymmetrical.

Errr, no, the undead campaign was the most fun bit of Warcraft 3. You played as Arthas, slaughtering the inhabitants of the eastern kingdoms, using the sunwell to raise kel'thuzad, culminating in summoning archimonde who tears down dalaran for kicks.
The undead campaign in TFT was getting to the frozen throne to merge Arthas and the Lich King before both of them die.

Nalano
14-02-2012, 06:44 PM
Speaking of Blizzard RTSs that I used to like but no longer like, I think the crux of why I no longer like them is because at some point between then and now, the focus switched from production and hard counters to unit retention and soft counters, and Blizzard missed the boat.

Serenegoose
14-02-2012, 06:54 PM
Speaking of Blizzard RTSs that I used to like but no longer like, I think the crux of why I no longer like them is because at some point between then and now, the focus switched from production and hard counters to unit retention and soft counters, and Blizzard missed the boat.

To an extent. For example, a marine in starcraft can hurt a siege tank. A rifleman in company of heroes can't hurt a tank. A pak 38 can't do shit against an infantry formation but will be decimated by one without effort. Starcraft 2 is actually with a few exceptions (melee units can't hurt air) very soft counter based compared to hard counter armies a lot of contemporary RTS games involve.

Though yeah unit retention is a bigger deal in more contemporary RTS games.

Nalano
14-02-2012, 07:02 PM
Though yeah unit retention is a bigger deal in more contemporary RTS games.

Yeah. A tank rolls up, you scatter your riflemen, because there's a reason to keep those riflemen alive, as combined arms > tankspam (and then, with sticky bombs, you harass the tank - heyyyy soft counter).

Skalpadda
14-02-2012, 07:24 PM
Errr, no, the undead campaign was the most fun bit of Warcraft 3. You played as Arthas, slaughtering the inhabitants of the eastern kingdoms, using the sunwell to raise kel'thuzad, culminating in summoning archimonde who tears down dalaran for kicks.
The undead campaign in TFT was getting to the frozen throne to merge Arthas and the Lich King before both of them die.

You are absolutely right of course. Clearly I need to go replay WC3 and also remember to think before I type.

Serenegoose
14-02-2012, 07:25 PM
Yeah. A tank rolls up, you scatter your riflemen, because there's a reason to keep those riflemen alive, as combined arms > tankspam (and then, with sticky bombs, you harass the tank - heyyyy soft counter).

Yeah, but that happens later - early game you don't even have sticky bombs, you have to buy them as an upgrade first. Ditto panzerschrecks. It's a hard counter unless you pay to upgrade your unit to make it a soft counter.

Nalano
14-02-2012, 07:35 PM
Yeah, but that happens later - early game you don't even have sticky bombs, you have to buy them as an upgrade first. Ditto panzerschrecks. It's a hard counter unless you pay to upgrade your unit to make it a soft counter.

It's also not particularly effective against infantry. But at any rate, we've departed from the original point: The focus shift. I didn't say there were no longer any hard counters. I said that such was no longer the end-all-be-all of the game.

DaftPunk
14-02-2012, 08:02 PM
I only enjoyed first two Warcraft games,otherwise all of their games are so freaking overrated that it already hurts.. Also how they ripped off Warhammer universe without ashame..lol :D

Moraven
14-02-2012, 08:53 PM
Have loved every Blizzard game. Lost Vikins. Rock n Roll Racing. War Star Diablo.

Sic
15-02-2012, 07:13 PM
Speaking of Blizzard RTSs that I used to like but no longer like, I think the crux of why I no longer like them is because at some point between then and now, the focus switched from production and hard counters to unit retention and soft counters, and Blizzard missed the boat.

Explain to me your thought process. Riflemen in CoH can't hurt a tank at all before getting an upgrade, that's a soft counter; while marines hurting tanks in SC2 is a hard counter?

Besides, unit retention is important in SC/SC2, and the meta game is ever shifting towards it being increasingly important (it's basically how people figured out how old BW pro players were smurfing in SC2 ladder, unit retention comes with skill). Look at for instance the development in SC2 PvZ, where opening Phoenix (and keeping all of them alive for map control) has become an option for Protoss versus a Mutalisk wielding Zerg.

What makes SC/SC2 stand head and shoulders over anything "contemporary" is precisely that the mechanics aren't "hard" at all, the mechanics are soft, and the player actions just as important as the player reactions (reactions as an answer to relatively "hard" mechanics). SC2 is an extremely dynamic game, believe it or not, and the meta game changes constantly.

For someone not playing the game, I can understand that it might look like it has a rock, paper, scissor quality, but in actuality, it really hasn't.

It's not inherently better to complicate or cement rigid mechanics like a lot of new RTS games do. When you create a good mechanic, dynamic and emergent gameplay develops from the players instead of the game, which is every game designers dream. Making players follow simplistic but hard recipes in a predefined path to an end-game is not a good thing at all.

Can you honestly give me any example of a game that has had a meta game development anywhere near as complex as SC:BW? The game is 14 years old, and the meta game is still shifting.

Moraven
15-02-2012, 08:41 PM
A good amount of that meta game shift comes from the new map rotations. I do not think many if any other RTS have be under constant map rotation as Brood War has. SC2 has a couple original maps in rotation still in tournaments, but it is mostly new maps from a year ago. Although the problem still is the game is still being balanced. Where BW last balance patch was ages ago.

Nalano
15-02-2012, 08:55 PM
Explain to me your thought process. Riflemen in CoH can't hurt a tank at all before getting an upgrade, that's a soft counter; while marines hurting tanks in SC2 is a hard counter?

That was an example the other guy gave, not one of mine, and you're misreading it entirely.

Sic
16-02-2012, 04:14 PM
Fair enough. Care to elaborate? Retort? Partake in a fencing duel?