Would you mind if Starcraft 2 is the same as its predecessor?

I was listening to the Giant Bomb podcast and according to one Brad Shoemaker who visited Blizzard recently: "Its not even an evolution...this is just Starcraft which is awesome, which is weird because if you're expecting changes, any huge major changes to the balance and the mechanics, thats not there"

I dont really have an opinion on this but I would like to know whether people, particularly fans, are happy that after this long its being kept largely the same.

Source: Giant Bomb Podcast. 33 minutes

To me it has always looked like SC1.5. looks like i'm not the only one who think so. ;)

To me it has always looked like SC1.5. looks like i'm not the only one who think so. ;)

Jinroh_basic

Im happy with that, even if its just an expansion pack with up to date graphics lol.

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

To me it has always looked like SC1.5. looks like i'm not the only one who think so. ;)

biggest_loser

i'm not touching it until the so called trilogy hit the bargain bin... go figure. :P

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

To me it has always looked like SC1.5. looks like i'm not the only one who think so. ;)

Jinroh_basic

i'm not touching it until the so called trilogy hit the bargain bin... go figure. :P

I'd be perfectly happy if they just made Starcraft prettier, with all the new B.net features.ILoveKHandAnime

Blizzard fanboism at its best -

rehashed titles by Blizzard = zomg effing best in the world.

by other studios = lack of innovation which is killing the industry.

lol.... double standard FTW.

Blizzard fanboism at its best -

rehashed titles by Blizzard = zomg effing best in the world.

by other studios = lack of innovation which is killing the industry.

lol.... double standard FTW.

Jinroh_basic

StarCraft II is a game which is familiar from my years of playing StarCraft (badly), but yet different in almost every way. Some key ideas are familiar - resources and scouting are still crucial, as is knowing when to build an expansion. The basic play-style of each race remains the same. Outside of that, however, StarCraft II is a game which StarCraft players will need to re-learn - but it's a learning process that won't take any longer than the first game's did.

Source.

If you don't investigate, it seems it's still the same game. The changes are quite deep. It's obvious the haters and Shoemaker don't pay attention.

To be honest ill give it a go like most of my friends go on about how much they love starcraft yet they havent finished the campaign. and i have. so how can they be hardcore fans

also i feel this will be like Counter Strike but this game has new or differnt unit abillities.

Not. Entirely. I mean they did add new units, the gold minerals, destructible rock barriers. It's different. What I want most is a continuation of the story, and I hope 100,000s of people will still play the multiplayer.

I'll reserve judgement until after I play it, but I'm not super confident in Blizzard at this point.

P.S. Gamespot your site is slow

I'll reserve judgement until after I play it, but I'm not super confident in Blizzard at this point.

P.S. Gamespot your site is slow

BLaZe462

Why would they spend so many years with starcraft 2 in developing state if they were to remake it`s graphics and nth more ?

I don`t agree with the fanboi-ism and the lack of inovation concept , the truth is people are just afraid that games they like and play (even if they are old as hell ) will get destroyed by "inovations " and such on . For example diablo 3`s auto stat system which has angered lots of fans , they will never make a game that will be better than d2 so us the players prefer a reworked version of what we already love . Not a new dumb up to date with the current level of gaming that is on every platform version .

wish they just revamped the graphics and battle.net. but this is coming from someone who still plays starcraft daily. overall its going to be a completely different game and anyone saying that not much has changed, is not a competitive brood war player.Ewok432

Yeah. I was never a "competitive" Starcraft player, but I watch the SC2 replays and I don't even really know why this unit or that is being built or what its strengths and weaknesses are without explanation.

No Dragoons, Reavers, Corsairs, Arbiters, Firebats, Medics, Vultures, Goliaths, Wraiths, Dropships, Explorers, Valkyries, Scourge, Queens (well, there are "Queens" but they are basically totally different units from what I can tell), Defilers, Guardians, or Devourers in multiplayer. Anyone who doesn't understand how significant the replacement of all of those units alone is - I have to think they never played a ton of the game online. I'm kind of annoyed that they didn't also get rid of Siege Tanks, but oh well. Hopefully they won't be as ridiculous this time around.

Then of course there are things like Protoss unit abilities to make temporary Pylons and to create temporary forcefields that no units can move through. Add-ons to Terran buildings seem to have been reworked altogether. Supply depots can sink into the ground. Zerg can now have more unit production without building a new "town hall," and on and on. I don't know how much more people wanted out of a sequel to one of the most beloved PC games of all time. It is a SEQUEL after all. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Maybe people are just miffed that they didn't do another race. Having seen all of the changes they've made to the ones that already existed, I've long since gotten over that personally.

Having 3 races balanced is perfect. Four skews things over.

Honestly I'm only hoping for new units, spiffier graphics, and custom games in said spiffy graphics.

I really don't mind if the multiplayer stays the same, but I definitely expect the gameplay in the single player to be innovative.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

To me it has always looked like SC1.5. looks like i'm not the only one who think so. ;)

Jinroh_basic

i'm not touching it until the so called trilogy hit the bargain bin... go figure. :P

[QUOTE="ILoveKHandAnime"]I'd be perfectly happy if they just made Starcraft prettier, with all the new B.net features.jwsoul

[QUOTE="jwsoul"][QUOTE="ILoveKHandAnime"]I'd be perfectly happy if they just made Starcraft prettier, with all the new B.net features.Nerkcon

Although I only played the beta, but from what I know, the game hasn't changed much.

You basically described DoW2, except that DoW2 has no depth whatsoever or strategy. The things you were able to do with Engineers are no longer possible.

The game felt so streamlined with the lack of an economy or defensive procedures. It felt too much like an RPG with RTS elements. There's too much focus on the hero units.

I basically summed it up with an older post:

Who are you to tell me that I can't call a game by what it actually is?

I've been playing a LOT of CoH for the past week and a half, and my original statement still stands:

DoW2 is an inferior version of CoH, taking away all of the good things that CoH had, dumbing it down, and reskinning it to a WH40k universe.

Where is the area denial like in CoH with barbed wire, tank traps and mines? If it's in the techmarine, how come I don't have this available to me by itself?

Where is the intelligent squad AI? I don't see the squads naturally dive for cover when they're under fire, or crouch next to it. They just stand there and fire.

The hero system is an absolute JOKE and needs to DIE in RTSs. WarCraft 3 proved that the hero concept DOES NOT belong in RTSs. You might as well call the game an RPG with RTS elements in them, not an RTS.

WHY THE HELL ARE THERE ONLY 3 SPACE MARINES PER SQUAD?! By lore, there's a minimum of5excluding the Sergeant.

Why does the game feel so much slower than CoH or DoW1?PunishedOne

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

Jinroh_basic

Ever heard of the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

PunishedOne

Ever heard of the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

biggest_loser

Ever heard of the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying anything negative about any games other than Starcraft II actually. It's a little odd to make some generalization that the people who are praising Starcraft II are also the people knocking those other games. Yes, I'm sure that happens, but where is it in this thread that you are calling people hypocrites? (Unless they are making games themselves, that's not "hypocrisy" anyway.)

Anyway, regardless, there's been a whole entire ONE Starcraft game (and an expansion of course). All of those other games used as examples have sequel after sequel after sequel. There thus far has not been a new Starcraft every year (Call of Duty) or over a dozen of them (Final Fantasy.) Yeah, if someone is going to put out game after game after game after game in a series, people are going to start getting tired of the same old, same old more than if there if there was only one game and it was ten years ago.

Bottom line, a lot of people think of Starcraft as the best multiplayer PC game ever made. It wouldn't exactly make sense for them to say, "Okay, we have a good thing here. People love this game. Some people revere this game. A few people practically eat, sleep, and breathe this game, even though it's a decade old. Let's piss them all off by making some other game entirely and calling it a sequel."

I honestly do not know what people expect. It's a sequel. It's not like they said, "Oh, hey, look at this brand new game idea we came up with." People keep saying it's too much like the old one, but then they never really specify what it is they would like to see done differently.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

Ever heard of the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

SpaceMoose

I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying anything negative about any games other than Starcraft II actually. It's a little odd to make some generalization that the people who are praising Starcraft II are also the people knocking those other games. Yes, I'm sure that happens, but where is it in this thread that you are calling people hypocrites? (Unless they are making games themselves, that's not "hypocrisy" anyway.)

Anyway, regardless, there's been a whole entire ONE Starcraft game (and an expansion of course). All of those other games used as examples have sequel after sequel after sequel. There thus far has not been a new Starcraft every year (Call of Duty) or over a dozen of them (Final Fantasy.) Yeah, if someone is going to put out game after game after game after game in a series, people are going to start getting tired of the same old, same old more than if there if there was only one game and it was ten years ago.

Bottom line, a lot of people think of Starcraft as the best multiplayer PC game ever made. It wouldn't exactly make sense for them to say, "Okay, we have a good thing here. People love this game. Some people revere this game. A few people practically eat, sleep, and breathe this game, even though it's a decade old. Let's piss them all off by making some other game entirely and calling it a sequel."

I honestly do not know what people expect. It's a sequel. It's not like they said, "Oh, hey, look at this brand new game idea we came up with." People keep saying it's too much like the old one, but then they never really specify what it is they would like to see done differently.

The changes between COD4 and WaW are insignificant. Between COD2 and 4, they only got better in the pre-canned animations department and slapped a class system that most free shooters have.

Starcraft is a perfectly balanced game. They replaced half of the units and modified all the others. You must be blind to not realize that these changes are major. It's like giving the pawns the abilities of the queen in chess, and then tweaking the rest of the game to make it balanced again. It opens a whole new layer of strategy, but they still look familiar.

I'm sweating on my chair waiting for the release date. but i guess it wont hurt too much if they done a few new mods

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

Jinroh_basic

1. When there are yearly releases and all of them give the same game play experience ala COD, RockBand etc

2. When there are many similar games out there and the game doesn't do much to stand out ala CoD , Resident Evil (somewhat ? ) etc

3. When the gameplay is subpar compared to the games you played years ago ala Red Alert 3.

Now Let's See starcraft 2 in this : It is being released after 10 years and there are very few rts similar to it and the game play is still unmatched in what it tried to do - So basically why would they change much when people want ad similiar gameplay experience as the old ones and cannot get it anywhere else. Anything else :roll:

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

naval

1. When there are yearly releases and all of them give the same game play experience ala COD, RockBand etc

2. When there are many similar games out there and the game doesn't do much to stand out ala CoD , Resident Evil (somewhat ? ) etc

3. When the gameplay is subpar compared to the games you played years ago ala Red Alert 3.

Now Let's See starcraft 2 in this : It is being released after 10 years and there are very few rts similar to it and the game play is still unmatched in what it tried to do - So basically why would they change much when people want ad similiar gameplay experience as the old ones and cannot get it anywhere else. Anything else :roll:

In terms of game play what separates SC from other RTS games to you? (that is mechanics, not just balancing)

So basically why would they change much when people want ad similiar gameplay experience as the old ones and cannot get it anywhere else. Anything else :roll:

naval

Universe at War and Rise of Legends offer the same type of gameplay - balanced, but not mirrored.

Both are major sales flops...

not really, a few new features, and up to date graphics are really all it needs

[QUOTE="naval"]

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

like i said. Double standard. i know as much about SC1.5 as you do ( battle report and all that, yep ). For a sequel that has been in development for over half a decade, it looks to be an incredibly underwhelming, conservative and inoriginal title. in short, it's REHASHED. now i have no problem with people worshipping it - hey, it's a free country - but what amuses the hell out of me is how these people have the cheek to trample on sequels from other devs. Do franchises like CoD, Red Alert, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc etc etc, feature subtle changes with each sequel released. most definitely yes, especially if you compare them to something that's spent 5 years to strap a handful of new units and, lol, destructible rocks on and masquerades as a AAA title.

but to the bliz fan(boy)s, ie the vast majority of pc gamers - no sir, nuh uh. if it ain't made by bliz it ain't deserve no common sense. lol.... what a major face palm. :D

biggest_loser

1. When there are yearly releases and all of them give the same game play experience ala COD, RockBand etc

2. When there are many similar games out there and the game doesn't do much to stand out ala CoD , Resident Evil (somewhat ? ) etc

3. When the gameplay is subpar compared to the games you played years ago ala Red Alert 3.

Now Let's See starcraft 2 in this : It is being released after 10 years and there are very few rts similar to it and the game play is still unmatched in what it tried to do - So basically why would they change much when people want ad similiar gameplay experience as the old ones and cannot get it anywhere else. Anything else :roll:

In terms of game play what separates SC from other RTS games to you? (that is mechanics, not just balancing)

it's no use, mate... really.... look how self-conceited these people have become. CoD yearly released? wrong. CoD and Resident Evil don't stand out? it's like saying an elephant walking down the 5th ave doesn't stand out. Red Alert 3 subpar? from what i know about SC1.5 ( which is as much as everyone does ), RA3 is already a better game.my opinion stands as firm as yours so don't tell me i'm wrong.

bottom line? DOUBLE STANDARD. it's that simple. i've figured it out for all of you. you're welcome. ;)

The changes between COD4 and WaW are insignificant. Between COD2 and 4, they only got better in the pre-canned animations department and slapped a class system that most free shooters have. Baranga

Wait, COD2 > COD4 was insignificant? Adding classes, levels, and moving to a modern era is insignificant? Geeze what the hell do you consider 'insignificant'? OH, a few key balance changes in Starcraft! :lol: I agree with the guy talking about the double standard. It seems people have a Blizzard complex.

EDIT: And before you attack me I am not saying anything about Starcraft. So please, oh please, don't smite me ol mighter Blizbots! (all 300 of you on this forums)

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

The changes between COD4 and WaW are insignificant. Between COD2 and 4, they only got better in the pre-canned animations department and slapped a class system that most free shooters have. Nerkcon

Wait, COD2 > COD4 was insignificant? Adding classes, levels, and moving to a modern era is insignificant? Geeze what the hell do you consider ' insignificant'? OH, a few key balance changes in Starcraft! :lol: I agree with the key talking about the duoble standard. It seems people have a Blizzard complex.

New skins for modern era aren't significant. Classes and levels... if lame, unknown Korean devs can do it every two months, I don't see why it's such a big achievement for IW and Treyarch.

Looks like my chess example wasn't clear enough, unfortunately.