I hate Starcraft II.

No, I don't mean I hate the game itself. I've never touched the beta.

What I mean is I hate what Starcraft II is doing to my other favorite games.

Ever since Blizzard announced that they were developing Starcraft II, devs and publishers everywhere shit their pants.

These devs and publishers know that no matter how good their games are, they can't possibly hope to go against the Starcraft II juggernaut.

It's bad enough that Blizzard doesn't even give a proper release date, so everytime Blizzard says they gonna finish and ship SC2 'soon', devs and pubslishers shit their pants and rush their games just so they don't have to compete with SC2.

This happened to DowII, and recently CnC4.

And for what? Starcraft II isn't revolutionary in any way. It's just the same game ten years ago with shinier graphics and some new units. In fact, Warcraft III was better. At least that game introduced the Heroes system and has 2 new races. What new things does SC2 got?

i dunno why i'm writing this here. maybe it's because i'm just emo after spending the last 5 hours downloading a patch to bad Company 2 only to have it crash and do it all over again. yet another game ruined by SC2.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 23 2010, 10:39 PM

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1050202

you can just voice out ur comment anytime in the existing thread instead of opening a new one.

i open this here because i don't want this to be drowned out by l33t tards who think using the [attack move] command is beneath them.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 23 2010, 10:56 PM

actually, i think this topic deserves a thread of its own.
if he posted in the sc2 thread no one would have noticed it.

haha our bro is blaming snow storm for the bad quality of 2 recent rts game.

Well u know, too bad all blizzard will do is continue their spooky way to dev the game without release date and they will laugh at us who keep waiting for it.

(But sh**t i'm saving my money for sc2 ori... ...)

Well then you should have ranted at the delays of so many games from Bayonetta to Bioshock 2 thanks to Modern Failure 2 (and what a crap game that was, worst AAA title for PC last year).

But yes, I noticed that RTS titles this year are aplenty and yet mediocre. Supcom 2 was a crushing disappointment, and judging from C&C4 reviews that's even worse off.

Misleading title is misleading; I was about to demand for the Battle.net login from TS. Anyway, StarCraft 2 is not all that revolutionary since Blizzard has to fulfill certain requirements or they'll lose their loyal fanbase from StarCraft 1. With this obstacle in mind, I think the other RTS developers should take the risk to come up with something new & at the same time BALANCED with LONG-TERM support.

To be frank, as long as any of the other RTS developers out there can integrate these 2 essential ingredients into their products, they shouldn't have much problem in reaching out to even die-hard StarCraft 1 players.

This post has been edited by talexeh: Mar 24 2010, 01:39 AM

besides the 2, i'd like to add one more: a nice storyline

but then most dev failed to achieved these 3 aspects, so that kinda makes Blizzard special and successful

I started to hate SC2 because it took so long to release,at the same time, every single RTS developers i know are releasing half baked pieces of crap. DoW2 shipped with 6 maps, a stupid campaign and horrible gameplay. Sup Com 2 have an incomplete multiplayer,with no ladders at all. Empire: Total War have lots of optimisation problems. C&C4,oh gosh, looks like everything is bad with that game.

SC2 is not revolutionary at all. It's the same game that all of us played 10 years ago. The only major difference that is in 3D,some UI upgrade like MBS where all the stone age people b**** about, and a few new units. SC2 used to be quite an innovative sequel, with some really creative units like Thor is a long range bombardment unit that needs to be build by SCV or Mothership that was a really powerful support unit. Then, Blizzard started to make everything lame and boring like turning Thor to a huge ugly Goliath and Mothership to a glorified Arbiter. I want a sequel,not the exact same game i played 10 years ago.

Thinking about those new generation of no base building RTS, im actually glad that someone spend time to innovate the game than just slapping a few new features in it. Even most of them failed.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 06:40 AM

If that is the case, then Red Alert 3 should be more famous than Starcraft 2. Red Alert 3 was balanced, and supported with patches for a long while.

On top of that, Red Alert 3 had many great ideas and implementations, among them an increased focus on naval battles, a refined rock-paper-scissors unit countering system, an easier resource collecting system, etc. From what i see from youtube, Starcraft II boasts none of that. In fact, Starcraft II is really a stepback from Warcraft III in terms of gameplay.

Yet, there were many l33t tards who always found things to biatch about 'how EA ruined Red Alert', or how 'Westwood CnC was better.' To a lot of people, the exceptional quality of the game seemed irrelevant compared to EA's bad reputation.

I guess at some point EA had enough with all the whining and said, "Okay fine, you pricks think we're an evil soulless corporation out to destroy your games for profit, well fine, have it your own way. Here's CnC4."

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 07:40 AM

erm... I just wonder 1 thing abt EA< after getting so much good feedback abt C&C3/ KW, why don't they do the same on it... ... rather than use C&C franchise as experimental platform for this spooky idea... .. haiz... ...

So yeah Cheesenium... although SC2 looks like nth but a 3D SC1, but hey let's keep it that way...

This post has been edited by Vorador: Mar 24 2010, 10:10 AM

I totally agree about RA3; IMO I think it's a pretty good RTS. Though I've not tried SC2, I was kinda disappointed that it didn't have anything new in-terms of gameplay except for better graphics, new units, old units with better or upgraded utilities.

Warcraft 3 was something I would say that's revolutionary; the hero system brings RPG elements to the RTS genre which adds to the gameplay dynamic. Though I have to say that the hero system has it's draw backs too, keeping a hero alive(which is one of the most important thing in the game) was not newbie friendly and many casual RTS gamers where turn-off by how much the game demands on micro-managing your units. It was truly only for those dedicated enough to practice and hardcores.

Remember how we use to compare 'apm' to check out the micromgmt skill?

Brag about High APM = add 10+ to e-penis

Declare that Attack-Move is for n00bs = add 20+ to e-penis

Hates Multi Building Selection = add 30+ to e-penis

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 10:51 AM

Hmmm lets see...

People complete revamp the game : You guys whine

People add new gameplay mechanics: You guys whine

People do nothing and stick to the tried and tested formula : You guys whine

that means every 'individu' is unique.... one person wants this, another one wants that... it is impossible to satisfy anyone...

This post has been edited by DoomHammer: Mar 24 2010, 12:08 PM

This is marketing.... it is vital if smaller(or less popular) game to avoid big titles release date..

Blizzard need to satisfy a lot of hardcore fans out there... and they're popular at releasing great games... you don't see them chincai chincai make 1 game and release right..

It's the same for Starcraft Ghost... we've seen the trailer, screenshots, wallpapers and what not.. but they rather drop the project off coz they dun think its gonna work..

You should see Blizzard as a Quality over Quantity type of company... Just see how many rubbish games that EA has released... chincai chincai release..

you do informed that Starcraft II is going to be a trilogy/3 expansion pack release right? expect more units and change of gameplay with each expansion in...

Whatever it is, I'm pretty anxious and excited about SC2; both singleplayer and multiplayer. Blizzard did mention that they are putting alot of effort to making a good singleplayer RTS game.

Me too. In fact, it's probably gonna be a great game and sell millions.

But that doesn't mean other devs and pubs should chicken out and rush their games. This is especially true for EA. The last time I checked, EA is the LARGEST game publisher in the world. They shouldn't fear Blizzard and their new partner SatanActivision

They could have put more work on CnC4, heck, release it after Starcraft II even. CnC itself is a respected franchise that existed longer before Starcraft. They could have made CnC4 a whole lot better - better than StarCraft II even - if only they man up and ignore Starcraft II instead of chickening out and rushing the game.

I mean look at SC2, just the same vaniall SC1 with shineier graphics. Heck, If I were the CEO of EA or lead designer of CnC4, i'd say to myself, "I think I can do better."

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: Mar 24 2010, 12:38 PM