Yes, SC2 is a lot of fun, and is leaps and bounds greater than SC1... a ten year old game... I recently played Red Alert 2, and found that, it is not very different in graphics, gameplay, internet, customization, or even fun. Maybe the real game will blow my mind, but the beta has been nothing but a mediocre experience. Maybe you can tell me why the game, 10 years in the making, is so much better than anything out there, because right now i dont see why it took so long and gets so much praise.
starcraft found a near-perfect formula for RTSes. if you think red alert 2 is remotely similar to starcraft or SC2, then you're probably not playing RTSes at an intensity where the differences actually show up. it's like a person who goes up to a car nut and says "the camaro and the mustang are practically the same car. i see no difference." expect an explosion of RAEG and an hour-long rant from every single mustang or camaro fan out there. they can give you tons and tons of examples of differences, like weight, rigidity, suspension, engine, handling, etc. etc. and it would all go over your head.
try a stronger logic check next you do something like this, remember not every opinion has to be shared.
I do know what you're trying to say. Starcraft 2 did not reinvent the strategy genre by any means and is very similar in gameplay to the first game yes. What makes it so great though is the concept. Starcraft is the absolute masterpiece of computer strategy games. It's the only strat game I know of that has three very distinct races/factions that all play differently yet strike a perfect game balance. Sure the gameplay hasn't changed much and doesn't feel 'new', but Starcraft 2 is moreso polishing the look and feel of the game to bring it up to speed with the current generation rather than completely alter the original game itself. It's like trying to create a sequel to chess.. Such a masterpiece is very hard/near impossible to duplicate, so instead the strategy is to make it more presentable to modern standards of gaming. Imo anyway .
Agreed here - the original Starcraft was the true masterpiece, the three carefully balanced races, the single player campaign and lore, the Brood War expansion, unlike anything before... there's a reason people are still playing it even today while its contemporaries have faded into obscurity. Starcraft 2 is a good game that make a lot of improvements on the original Starcraft (graphics, UI, maybe even balance), and obviously uses a whole new game engine which is no small technical feat, but from a gameplay perspective is conservative and not nearly as revolutionary. (And of course SC2 really needs LAN support back)
I think this game shows really, really well what SC2 will become: http://blip.tv/file/3697826 WhiteRa vs. Maka. Absolutely amazing.
You've managed to fit 10 years in the period from halfway 2007 till now? Impressive. Other people pretty much said the rest of what needs to be said.
Ah man, I'm so in love with this game I just think the OP fails. Lol. Sure Bnet 2.0 sucks the fat one, and there is room for improvement in the game. But come on, the game hasn't even been released yet and its already awesome. You're comparing it to a game (SCBW) that has been fine tuned for years and years, and has an expansion. It's not really fair. I think SC2 is heaps of fun and awesome already, I can't wait to see how good it is going to get as time goes on.
SC never was revolutionary. Gamespot's critique sums it up best: " It doesn't stray far from the template established by its predecessors, but it is, without a doubt, the best strategy game to ever adhere to that formula." Now, you level the accusation that the gameplay is "conservative". Very well. Conservative in what sense? The gameplay is similar to its progenitor, certainly --and that is how the game is being designed. However, when most gamers strike at SC2, complaining it's "conservative", they're really abetting a horrible double standard: yes, Blizzard have not toyed with the 1998 RTS' fundamentals, however, Chris Taylor --by all accounts a great game designer-- has been churning out clones of Total Annhilation for over 12 years now. But never have I heard someone say that Mr Taylor is "conservative", and yet the man has adhered to the same formula for well over a decade now. Explain that, please. And while we're on the subject, I'd be interested in knowing what modern RTSs you consider avant-guarde. You do realise that the only truly revolutionary RTS made in the last 2 years is Sins Of A Solar Empire? Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed that those RTS titles that sell themselves on the fact that they are "original" or "revolutionary" tend to be monstrosities?
Just a heads up that the OP is a troll. Instead of posting all over when a kid like this shows up and doesn't stand up for his posts, ignore it. We've had the discussions about how bad/good SC2 is compared to other RTS games, and the end decision has been that there is no comparison.
