Dawn of War 2 V StarCraft 2 again

Excellent point you made there. I have never considered it that way

 

I feel divided here.

Although SC1 was indeed a very polished game that set the standard for the genre, it by no means must necessarily be the pinnacle of RTS gaming or the perfect game. It was very good, but only a fanboy would say it can't get better.

I guess I expected blizzard to innovate a bit more. It will still be a very good game, but it feels like they are giving in too much to oldschoolers.

For example, who the hell says Vespene gas and gigant crystals are believable resources anyway? They were invented as a sci-fi solution to resource management and subsequently polished. There are probably much better alternatives.

I wanted a blizzard game that pulled the genre forward. A graphical update was my second best option.

 

I think this quote describes Blizzard well:

"It's easy to be different. It's very difficult to be better." - Jonathan Ive (no flame wars please)

 

This is an opinion; not a fact. Stop confusing the two. Telling someone which opinion's are valid is no better than being an actual fanboy.

 

Some opinions are better than others. The difference is opinions are never 100% correct or incorrect, they fall in the millions shades of grey inbetween.

 

My opinion is that everything that comes out of your mouth and is sent from your keyboard is wrong; just wrong.

What now?

 

StarCraft:Brood War was the last (and the greatest) of those RTSes engendered by Dune. While an absolute masterpiece, it also has certain flaws, the greatest being that some units are virtually never used (the valkyrie is a conspicuous example). This is problematic when considering Blizzard's philosophy about units in StarCraft: it must serve a specific purpose, and be useful throughout the game. I consider StarCraft to be analogous to another classic game that has been played/studied to death: Chess. Many grand masters have recognised that there are very few surprises left in Chess since too many games are played by rote (which has led to some proposed variations such as Omega Chess, and Cappablanca Chess, among others). Unsurprisingly, all variations feature new pieces (some are quite imaginative!) in an attempt to break the known patterns and previously estblished formulas. This is what Blizzard are attempting to do, to rejuvenate a classic game by introducing new units and new game mechanics that don't clash with the original StarCraft's template. This is also why I think Blizzard should add tools to the map editor that would allow the community to create its own units: surely the community has the ability to design a few units equal to Blizzard's.

As I explained above, they chose to expound on the princicples established in their masterpiece rather than ''innovate''. I think it was a sagacious decision: they are not attempting to make StarCraft into someting it's not for millions of fans.

 

I disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om9UFgyuN-E&#t=9m45

 

Almost everytime someone says [insert unit] isn't used very much some person has to post some damn pro-rep like it means something. Just because one game has Valkyries used doesn't mean the other billions of games that Valkyrie's weren't used are no longer important.

It's not like he said Valkyries are useless. He just said they aren't used.

-- Anyways, keep it up Zealot. I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. It's all correct to me.

 

It is a fact. When you describe something like a game as perfect and unchangeable, you are in fact only stating that you are very emotionally attached to the game in its current state.

Nothing is beyond improvement, and THAT, is a fact, my friend.



And I stand by my point. Starcraft 2 represents the ossification of a genre. And that's never a good thing.

 

Everything in the whole universe and beyond can be seen as an opinion. A fact is just an opinion stated by someone who has a strong belief in what he or she says. Scientists once stated as a fact that the human body could not survive travel above 50 miles per hour. They stated as facts that the earth was flat, that everything was made out of four elements and that videogames would make you dumb. Facts are an illusion of the mind and almost always wrong. Just live with it that people have their own opinions about stuff.

Now please get back on topic. This thread is starting to get way out of hand. You can always make a thread on this in the lounge. Or if you keep writing that crappy, in space junk.

 

@Sueco: Thank you for proving my point.

 

Ossification: is Blizzard really a team of paleontologists? With regards to StarCraft II, I favour a loftier term: Restoration. Naturellement, it's all a matter of perspective. However, Ossification is also good friends with another pejorative term: Obsolescence. Do you truly believe that SC2, a yet-to-be-released-game, is obsolete, ergo, irrelevant? What upsets you about StarCraft II playing like a late '90's game?... I have no problem with the lack of innovation: I consider StarCraft II a restoration that expounds on the original's principles.

I find that those who argue most vehemently for an innovative StarCraft II all too often mistake innovation for brilliance. Is DOW2 more brilliant than StarCraft 2 because it toys with innovation? Tell me, why would a lack of innovation preclude a game from the quality of brilliance? If you'll permit a poor analogy: is the stone and wood compound that is the Palace of Versailles any less a masterpiece than the Eiffel Tower because it isn't made of iron? If the Palace of Versailles were in need of renovation would we not use wood, plaster and stone to repair it, rather than iron? StarCraft: Brood War is old, tired and hideous to look at, but despite this, it is still played, it is still fun, it is still a masterpiece: do you resent that a classic game is finally getting a well deserved facelift, that it is being restored for the benefit of a new generation of gamers? You certainly seem to.

 

If I may, what about FPS genre where innovation was vital to preventing it from becoming stale?

The latest installments in the two 'oldest' series, Doom 3 and Quake 4, had no innovation whatsoever and were terrible to play. Half-Life 2 and Fear, on the other hand, were fantastic examples of the genre that did things differently and innovated.

Theres my 2c

 

Half-Life 2 and FEAR are story immersive.

Doom 3 and Quake 4 are not.

Beyond the Gravity Gun, physics, and slow-mo (FEAR)... I don't see much innovation.

 

FEAR is AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZING!

But, other than actually having some scares and slow motion, it was not innovative at all ... and that's what was so damn great about it.

Innovation isn't everything it's cracked up to be becaue, for the most part, the best gameplay mechanics for genres have already been found so, now, all that's necessary is a few little tweaks (FEAR, Gears Of War, Call Of Cthulu, etc)

-- Keep it up ZealotInATuxedo. You're saying all the things I want to say but in a much more eloquant, expanded, and thought out way.

 

Does no one else appreciate this post?? This thing is a veritable thesis statement. Bravo!

 

/\ Indeed. The post is a Masterpiece. Oh and welcome to the forums SaharaDrac.

 

I'm a firm believer that Blizzard will deliver. All of their games age well and are timeless in my opinion.

Edit: Dawn of War 2 is pretty awesome from what I hear. I'm sure both games will be good. But Blizzard does have a great track record especially with RTS. Starcraft 2 will be amazing, I'm sure of it.

 

I find your remarks both timely and, in essence, correct. But, Lori, isn't innovation a key to any genre's continued success? Perhaps I'm mistaken, in which case: can you name a genre for which innovation isn't occasionally needed? I've always thought that innovation, rather than the paradigm shift many expect it to be, is a much more evolutionary process achieved by a careful selection, blending and manipulation of a genre's (or genres in DOW2's case) ''gene pool''. All paragons of a particular generation are, in one way or another, brothers and cousins: while sharing similarities, they are not merely sordid clones of each other, and exist as individuals. Mediocre games, en revanche, are comparable to an incestuous royal family: there is no new blood introduced in the dynasty, and consequently their flaws are grossly exaggerated after a few generations of incestuous marriages. Result: Stormrise, and all games that metaphorically incarnate the infamous Hapsburg Lip (King Charles II of Spain suffered from this congenital deformity, and couldn't even chew his food!). There is one blessing with incestuous lines: their offspring eventually become sterile, which effectively (and fortunately!) spares us the threat and embarassment of their perennial presence. Therefore, yes, innovation and variety are quintessential to not only a genre's success but its very survival.

In my above post, I challenged a fellow fan to regard StarCraft II as something more than ''the ossification of a genre''. StarCraft: BroodWar was the last and greatest of those games that claimed DUNE II as their forefather; that generation of RTSes is, excluding a popular new travesty of Red Alert on the Xbox360, effectively extinct. While I have discussed gaming in broad evolutionary and genetic terms, I do not suggest, as many do, that ''old school'' RTSes are inherently less strategic or inferior in any way to the new generation of games: this transition towards a new generation of RTSes is not the result of any Darwinian concepts, such as Survival of the Fittest. Rather, I feel that much like schools of Art, the new generation is exploring possibilities denied to their predecessors.

I perceive that many fans angered or disenchanted by StarCraft II's failure (some would suggest inability) to ''push the genre in a new direction'' have placed too heavy a burden on our colossus: though potent, StarCraft is not Atlas. It will not (nor could it) carry the whole RTS world on its shoulders. Innovation is a responsability shared by all, not merely Blizzard and StarCraft. Perhaps what disconcerts you is that StarCraft II disregarded the World and chose to ponder on its own legacy. Those already familiar with my opinions will tell you that this apparent selfishness on StarCraft II's part will be to the World's enrichment.