Dawn of War 2 V StarCraft 2 again

Is Blizzard Creating An Already Outdated Game In A Evolving Genre?

Interesting argument...

Its made me consider SC2 more now, and whether or not it is actually going to be the killer app of th year.

Thoughts?

 

It's Blizzard ffs.
I thought the same about CnC3 and RA3, but then I realized it's not Westwood anymore.

 

How do you mean?

 

Bah. He's asking for innovation, but what isn't (very) broken...

He think it's all about "improving" every aspect of the game and to follow the current market leader. The way resources and combat is handled in Relic games is for Christ sake not an improvement of the RTS genre, it's the creation of a new sub-genre.
That's like thinking every FPS needs realistic camera and weapon bumping when you run, an auto-regenerative health system without visible numbers that distorts the view the more damage you take, and no visible cross hair but an aiming mode with the right mouse button (all of these examples applying to games like CoD4).
If Valve had decided these were indeed evolutions of old systems and not just newer and different systems, HL 2 would have sucked. It's supposed to be the way it is, just like SC2 is.

Remember, just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. It could very well just be different.

 

I played dawn of war 2 and all I got to saying starcraft like it is.. Well.... are you freaking nuts? You can have like 10 squads in that thing TOTAL I don't want like 9 units in a melee game. I wonna see massive combat not that crap they gave you in Dawn of War 2. In my honest opinion that's an okay RTS for that genre. But I don't want small scale battles. I want large scale battles that aren't based around squads and if I want to build 10 tanks and 10 marines its bloody well possible. Also I want more then 9 different units for each race. This is Starcraft NOT dawn of war. This is not a squad based RTS its based off using a large army and strategy. Sorry but Dawn of War 2 was a disappointment compared to the first one and its expansions. IF there was any game out there I would want blizzard to try and learn a few things from its Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation just because they allow over thousands of units on the battlefield at once. Plus the graphics aren't that bad. But comparing Starcraft to a game like Dawn of War is a serious mistake anyway you slice it.

 

"Innovation" in RTS recently hasn't really done it for me. That's why I'm still playing StarCraft: Brood War almost daily even after eleven years of playing it.

 

I understand what you mean. When ever I venture into a new RTS I always end up going straight back to Starcraft. But Supreme commander and Total Annihilation are the exception mainly because of how easily they are able to be modded. Plus the sheer amount of units you can have on the map at one time is unrivaled. I mean could you imagine a starcraft game where you can build 300 tanks and still have room for 700 marines or w/e?


O and That game is extremely unbalanced. I played a skirmish as the elders and just massed Fire Prims and their APC unit I can't remember what its called. I never had to mass another unit. If that was starcraft I would have lost the entire game in under 3 minutes after making such a stupid mistake. But somehow on DoW2 5 elder tanks is enough to win the game.

 

The number of units doesn't matter to me, as that is no source of joy for me. The relationship between the player and what happens on the screen is what matters to me, and SC2 sacrifices realism for a fast and pleasing influence on the units. An example being how vehicles can do 360's in a split second.

 

True but what would you think of Starcraft 2 if you could only command 10 units on the screen at Tier 3. Also I don't think we should put in any mechanics from other games because it just destroys the golden gameplay you get from Starcraft as is. But if we had to choose a game to take game mechanics and implement into Starcraft that game definately would not be Dawn of War 2.

 

Well ok, maybe 10 would annoy me. But let me tell you this: Warcraft 3, or Starcraft, or DoW - doesn't matter to me regarding unit count. I make the judgment based of off what I was talking about before as well as other things. To tell you the truth I prefer smaller armies, such as the ones seen in WC3, DoW2 and SC in the early game, yet the only one of the three that I like is SC - the one featuring the biggest battles.

 

I only care about unit count in UMS epic battles

 

I just think its kind of fun to order a thousand units to attack another thousand then watch the carnage unfold. But anywho we are getting off topic. DoW2 sucks and there for SC2 should not play like it.

 

as stated in all previous vs threads:

you cant really compare with a game that isnt out yet

Blizzard isnt about innovation its about doing existing stuff better

 

I would take it a step further; they do it to perfection. They master a particular gameplay style so that no amount of time can diminish that game's enjoyment.

 

I was just about to mention that... That article was suggesting that StarCraft 2 really being more of a StarCraft 1.5 (and it is) was a weakness, whereas I feel that's always been one of its strengths: in StarCraft BroodWar Blizzard perfected the RTS genre that originated with DUNE.

 

Do people complain this much about Diablo 3? I never noticed it if they did. And, so, to me, it seems like this whole debate is just a bunch of Relic fanboys that are insecure about their game so they have to go to places where StarCraft fans are to flame them. And the only thing they can use to backup that their game is equal or greater is that it is innovative and Blizzard game's aren't ... just doesn't make sense to me.

IMHO: Blizzard does tried-and-true things to perfection. Relic does mediocrity with a twist.

 

Yeah there's a lot of D3 complaining as well, mostly about it being too much like Warcraft now. It's coming mostly from former WoW-addicts who used to love Blizzard games but after realizing they just wasted away 3 years of their lives felt a need to somehow take revenge. ;-)

I personally am looking forward to both SC2 and D3, and know that they will live up to the high expectations that are always placed upon Blizzard games. Blizzard may not innovate a ton, but they do enough to keep the experience unique, and more important they develop their games well enough that they have replay value unlike any other in their genre. I still play Starcraft. I still play Diablo 2.

I've played plenty of other fun and creative strategy games over the past 10 years but the excitement of something new always wears off and is replaced with the discovery of flawed gameplay. That's why Blizzard is King in my book. I hope it stays that way!

 

The articles author, IMO, is trying to make that point that SC2 wont push the GENRE forward in any meaningful way. Yes, it is perfecting the foundation laid down by Dune, but the genre is remaining stagnant. DoW pushed the genre is a different direction, as did CoH and Homeworld (Relics first RTS IIRC).

Personally, I respect both Relic and Blizzard for their games. I played a ****load of Winter Assault (first DoW exp), War3 and SC so Im certainly no company-only fanboy. However, I can see the authors point.

 

@Iori: Sorry Iori and TC. I was talking about the overall DoWfanboy movement; not anyone in this thread. My comment was on the things I've seen in other forums and around the internet. It seems like once a month there has to be a DoW/Relic/Warhammer fanboy that has to come into a Blizzard forum and start up a "flame war". GameFAQs is a lot, lot, lot worse though. But, anyways, that was my point. I wasn't talking about this topic, it's posters, or anyone on this forum.

@EtB513: Yeah, I know a lot about the "WarCraft-y" complaints but I'm talking about complaints in which people think Diablo 3's gameplay is stale and hasn't evolve enough since Diablo 2 came out.

 

I feel compelled to mention (as I did in another thread) that comparisons between DOW2 and SC2 are largely spurious: while both fall under the vague and vast umbrella of ''RTSdom'', they emphasise different facets of the genre. More than that, they are of two distinct generations; DOW2, as others have also surely noted, owes far more to Diablo than StarCraft: levelling up, loot, items --while primordial characteristics of DW2, Blizzard would never think to include them in the standard SC2 multiplayer, as they have no place in the template established by its predecessors. I don't care to enter the labyrinthine task of comparing and contrasting the two games: I limit myself to suggesting that, inherently, they appeal to different gamers, or if you're like me, to your different moods; for that reason, DW2 and SC2 will not directly compete with each other.

I also write to refute a pseudo-diplomatic argument used by too many SC2 fans: ''you can't compare SC2 and DOW2 because one is released, and the other is not". For the sake of concision, I will not elaborate on the diffident arguments' logical fallacy. I say pseudo-diplomatic because behind that polite suggestion there's the stink of complacency, as if though those who employ it are acutely embarrassed for SC2's lack of innovation (THAT is the thorny issue, is it not?). We may not be familiar with all the finer details of SC2's gameplay, however, I am certain that ''innovative'' is a quality that could only be applied to SC2 anachronistically, and therefore, incorrectly -- fallaciously. True, StarCraft 2 will not be innovative. But it has no need to be --unlike DOW2, a game necessarily marketed on ''originality'', a game that assimilates and adapts ideas from a panoply of sources in order to present a slightly confused (although earnest) attempt at originality. "Originality'', Einstein once pointed out, ''is the art of concealing your sources''. Perhaps the cleverer detractors of DOW2 are too astute to enjoy the omnium-gatherum that it is. However, I think it more likely that Dawn of War 2 too fully identified its precursors; it is truly adolescent --undecided as to its vocation and its role, still too heavily indebted to those that engendered it. Yet, I know that this awkward amalgamation liberating itself from its parents' influence and their inculcated values could mature into its own individuality. All that is required of it is effort and time.

Time: that is the crux to this debate, really. DW2 is a herald of the new generation of RTSes, a generation that, like all generations, breaks with its forefathers and attempts to improve on its own inherited shortcomings. As DOW2 advocates gleefully note and never tire of repeating, it has broken with its predecessors. However, it is myopic and arrogant to claim that DOW2 is alone in its quest for Innovation. Other RTS games, such as Sins of a Solar Empire, are also out there, exploring possibilities, pushing boundaries. In terms of Innovation and Originality, DOW2 is too obviously a pastiche, albeit an enjoyable one. Fellow StarCraft fans, this debate has convinced me of one thing: we are now the old generation, we are the Old Guard, proponents of a gem that some term ''obsolete'' or lacking in ''innovation''. But I suggest that we ignore all the superfluous adjectives attributed to it, for whether green, blue, or red, is not a gem always a gem? Think: would we enjoy an innovative StarCraft more than a sequel that expounds on its antecedents? I think not, because I consider StarCraft 2 not so much a sequel as it is a restoration (I use the word as it applies to works of art). After all, even the illustrious proofs of perfection left by long-dead masters such as Michael Angelo, Titian and Raphael have required rejuvenation; inexorably, is it not only to the detriment of their own world if younger generations neglect old masterpieces? I feel that an innovative StarCraft2 would be akin to writing graffiti all over Da Vinci's Last Supper, which is something much worse than petty neglect.