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

The reason that RA3 is not famous at all is because of EA's inconsistent support. RA3 is a solid game and reasonably easy to balance it. The first 6 month after release, RA3 have enjoyed good consistent support from EA. The community thrived.There are some cookie cutter retarded BOs like Allied base crawling or PK spam that EA never bother to fix the problem after 6 months the game release. That pretty much killed the community once EA have stopped supporting it,as the game is still quite far from balanced.

Another thing that SC2 dont have compared to RA3 is, entertaining replays. Most of the best replays i have watched are in RA3.

Maybe i hate SC2 because of the cartoonish WoW inspired art(look at High Templar) and the conservative Koreans trying to make it a SC1 in 3D,rather than the game itself. Just change the damn game a bit.

I would say that RA3 and Generals ZH are the best C&C post-Westwood.

---

Added on March 24, 2010, 1:27 pmPeople whine because the game turn out to be far too different from what they have expected.

If EALA actually spend more time to refine C&C4,whining would have not happen. The current game is just terrible. Brainless spamming.

If DoW2 actually still have some base building, whining would have never happen,as every single CoH and DoW1 player always wanted DoW2 to be CoH in space with W40k license back in 2008.

If SC2 was a little more daring in innovating,whining would have stop as some fans doesnt want a 10 year old game's sequel in 3D.

Rubbish games from EA???

Say that to Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, NFS:Shift, BFBC2, Dead Space, Burnout Paradise, Red Alert 3.

Are those games are rubbish???? I disagree,as EA has improved a lot these 2 years.

The new quantity over quality company is Blizzard's lovely partner,Activision,not EA anymore. I wont say Blizzard isnt affected by the greed of Activision,even though Blizzard is still so called independent.

Expect another CoD and more (Insert musical instruments) Hero game this year

EALA is on the verge of bankruptcy.And EA is no longer the biggest publisher anymore.

Thats why they release a mediocre so-called epic conclusion to C&C. They are closing shop pretty soon,after the huge loss made with Tiberium and bad sales with RA3.

I expect EALA to have same fate as EA Black Box.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 01:27 PM

Thats not the best.

The best i saw is a game of Allied against Empire.

Both build their bases in the sea. Towards the end,Empire has only a ship yard and he only have like 6 Yari subs,while Allied had like a few structures with one air field in the water too,plus 1 Apollo and 3 Vindicators.

In the last few moments, the Allied send his planes to bomb the Empire ship yard and they Vindicators didnt have enough bombs. The ship yard had only a tiny bit of health,almost died. At the same time,the Empire's Yari subs was wiping out Allied's structure one by one,until the last one.

Guess who win in the end and how?

It has,and i have seen it a few times.

I just need the Beta key to actually play it now.

Sick of watching boring youtube replays.

It's dead now,as EA stopped patching.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 02:30 PM

It's because they are loaded with money.

If they are short of money, i doubt that they are still that generous.

At least EA's past few product's quality has increased a lot and most of them are very good games.

Just that they are still recovering from their past financial problems.

I still wont put Blizzard as the king. There are some short comings in Blizzard.

Blizzard become rich after Starcraft and Diablo 2 where it become so popular till it's an e-sport. Then,got even richer with WoW. Therefore they can support all their games. Not like they have 10 or more games.

I wont say EA is the same as 2 years ago since John Ricettello took over.

Mass Effect 2 is the product of all the criticism and praises of the fans/media in Mass Effect 1. Mass Effect 2 have better combat,less tedious MAKO driving and epic world. People were complaining about the horrible MAKO in Mass Effect 1,and Bioware removed it in Mass Effect 2. Go ask any Mass Effect player about their MAKO experience. Most of them hate it. In the end, Mass Effect 2 was great and a big improvement from Mass Effect 1. Memorable stories with memorable characters and good combat. Now,they are going to build Mass Effect 3 on the praises and criticism of Mass Effect 2.

If they gonna milk Mass Effect the way they did with Mass Effect 2,go ahead. I would still buy it as long as it's a good game. At least there are innovations in current EA games,rather than changing just the graphics and add a few new guns/units.

If you havent played a decent EA game(especially from Bioware) in last 2 years,please stop accusing them for milking the fans.

---

Added on March 24, 2010, 3:22 pmAlmost everyone in this thread says SC2 is RTS killer. After what happen to MW2,where i used to say it's the FPS killer,i wont put much hope on SC2.Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

I wont put other RTS isnt competent enough to compete with SC2,as most RTS out now are good games but flawed in some way. Other RTS company did not have as much hype as SC2 and the hype a lone can bring a lot of sales,like what happen to MW2 or previous NFS like Carbon despite it's a shitty game.

Activision Blizzard is depending on those franchise that have good previous sales records like CoD,SC,Diablo and Warcraft to earn money. Hype it up,and millions of dollars will flow into their pockets. Once their proven franchise have started to show less sales, they will buck up to improve it. This is the same situation as what happen to EA few years ago,where EA is extremely arrogant.FIFA,Madden, NFS, C&C, MoH, Battlefield all have annual sequels during that time till the quality and sales dropped to abyss only they realise that they have been doing it all wrong. Only then,they started to come out with innovative features and new franchise. It's the same cycle,except different company.

Besides,BFBC2 rocks.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 03:25 PM

I pretty much still remember that replay's every second.

Very well played.

There are a few more memorable ones,but this one stands out the most by far.

Borderlands wasnt EA,it was 2K.

I dont hate WoW,but the art style(cartoon like) doesnt work well with D3 and SC2.

The Egyptian High Templar still annoys me. At least he floats and moves with blue shadows now.

I was playing it quite competitively for a while,from Beta till 1.2.

It was really fun. Then,it died before i can get back to it.

Blizzard doesnt spam games? How about WoW expansion where it has become a yearly release after merger with Activision?

Burning Crusade 2008
Wrath of Lich King, 2009
Cataclysm, 2010

And also SC2 suddenly has become 3 separate games,rather than 1 initially?

Doesnt ring a bell that Blizzard has become greedy? Or they are still the saint that emphasis more on quality than quantity,even though they have been releasing WoW expansion yearly. Seems more like they have been affected by Activision's greed. This isnt good.

Besides,if you say EALA released 2 C&C in a year is greedy,how about Relic who had also released 2 RTS games in 2009,ToV and DoW2? Also both DoW:DC and CoH at 2006? ZOMG,Reric milking gamers now!!!!! Reric suxxors....

EA now owns Bioware on 2008.

Bioware wiki.

It just show that you still hate EA for all their past shit games and still think that they are still the same bunch of assholes.

If EA still an ass, they wouldnt have give Bioware a huge budget and long development cycle for their next game called Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic MMO where Bioware considers the MMO as KOTOR 3,4,5,6 and 7 in one MMO.

I sense this topic gonna be closed soon.

Okay,so,if they want their old fans to come back,why the hell are they making a 10 year old game in 3D? Might as well call it Starcraft: Reloaded and sell it for 20USD.

So,now,SC is the most successful game on the planet now.What about WoW?

It gets even more cartoonish as they approach to beta to the point where units started to look retarded like Sentry,Nullifier,Brood Lord.

The terran buildings look like as if it's made of plastic,than Neosteel.

I know about that.

At least not as bad as Activision.

Even if they are charging for demo,cant be bother with it. Wait till full game release only buy.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 24 2010, 04:56 PM

Thats why i hate how high templar look like now. Fugly like hell.

Also that old Infester model that looks like an onion with multiple mouths.Ugh.

Not again,you know how shitty is my internet in Aus.

Looks like they are not using that DRM,though.

True,the games are pretty bland,bu the after sales support is amazing.

Like how SC2 planes fight,just stay stationary.

Unlike TA where they fly everywhere.

Tell which army has something that actually moves like those units you micro in most RTS.

TA and Sup Com planes land and flies like a real plane.

Unlike other game's one that you can micro them.

You are still ignoring the good stuff they have made.C&C4 is one shit game,how about the rest?

No thanks,i want a new game. Not a remake with shiny graphics that have become 3 separate games even before the first one release.

At least EA have the balls to experiment with new ideas,IP and concept,while Blizzard wants to suck up to their old fans with the same old thing.If you still believe that Blizzard is the best developer in the world,while other developers are all rubbish,which is what you have been implying all these while,well,whatever floats your boat. I have nothing to say.

You'll play your SC2,while i carry on with my other games.

Whatever they are doing with SC2, it's not the SC2 i have been waiting for 10 years. I want a sequel to SC1,not SC1.5 in 3D with out of place WoW art.

You keep saying other companies keep making crappy sequel after a decent game. EA keep milking their fans,while Blizzard dont.

I actually prefer CS:Source than CS1.6,as Source have that same awesome physics effects in HL2.

Fundamentally the same,but the physics makes it different. No more awkward grenade projectile.

Im not forcing anyone not to play SC2, i just want the bashing on other games/developers stop as it's getting more and more as SC2 approaches release.It's true that C&C3/RA3/DoW2/CoH etc are not as balanced or competitive as SC2, is there a need to bash them? Saying that those developers are incompetent,while indirectly saying Blizzard is all awesome because they are loaded enough to support their games for 10 years.

I dont know how HoN is doing,but i heard the Beta is also very good.

EALA is facing financial issues,as they have made like 20million USD losses due to Tiberium.They could not recovered the losses in Uprising as it's just a SP expansion. Probably EA did not give them a huge budget and long development cycle to start with in C&C4 due to their past failures. There are other problems from what i heard like fussy managers,bad management etc. There are rumors that they are going to close shop soon.

What i think is,EALA is almost in the same situation as EA Black Box.

Therefore the game turn totally shit.Why compare a thriving developer with a dying one?

Thats Blizzard's problem for not releasing relase date and took 5 years just to make a game like this.

---

Added on March 26, 2010, 10:31 amYeah yeah yeah,SC2 is always much more awesome than the stuff the competitors make.

Close this thread please. Fanboyism are everywhere.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 26 2010, 10:31 AM

Not to the point of half baked games are being released.

So,your definition of great games from a good company is consistent support. How about those who dont have consistent support? Rubbish in your book,even including games like Witcher, Trackmania, Neverwinternights?

Blizzard definitely have the money,with their cash cow WoW. Does EA have a cash cow? No,not now,as KoToR MMO still in development,and Warhammer Online isnt doing as good as they thought. Does Relic have a cash cow? No, as CoH Online is still in development. They need to put their funds and man power on their upcoming projects than putting them on patching an existing game. Patching cost money,and any Relic gamer wuld have known as this is the main issue why are there so little patches in some Relic games. Blizzard have consistent flow of money,therefore they can afford to put some support once in a while. It's all about the money.

Again,you are saying EA buying companies to make shit. Ever since EA's acquisition of Bioware, have they made any bad games? I dont remember as Mass Effect and Dragon Age are universally acclaimed. Is Mass Effect 2 a terrible sequel? No, it's a total improvement over Mass Effect 1.How about BFBC2? A sequel to BFBC1, is it a terrible game? And why are 230,000 people on PC are playing it online if it's what you have expected: EA make shit sequels. I dont remember Shift is bad, nor Nitro,where both are pretty good. C&C4 is probably the only rotten apple in the basket and you just assume the entire library of current EA games are all rubbish. Is this the same as saying Blizzard is the best developers while the rest is rubbish,on an assumption that they dont support their games as often as Blizzard? I dont see you playing DoW2,as you have said, Relic dont support their games as well as Blizzard. Therefore,they are not good in your book. Thats the reason i say, you go ahead and play your perfectly balanced and supported SC2,while i continue to play other developer's games. They arent perfect, but they offer different experience.

I have no problem with how Blizzard is run as they always want to strive for perfection,but i do have a problem where people are saying Blizzard's competitor's games are rubbish while Blizzard is awesome. Solely on the point that Blizzard games is well supported. It's happening more and more often as SC2 approaches release.

No doubt SC2 is gonna be awesome. The story, the gameplay, and the competitive potential of this game. It's gonna be at least a decent game,even though it's all SC1 in 3D.

I dont see whats wrong of bringing up HoN.

They are probably the closest competitor to Starcraft 2 in terms of competitive capabilities.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Mar 26 2010, 03:12 PM