SuAside, I want to make sweet mental love to you for that post. 
Starcraft 2 - It is out there
- Thread starter Signeon
- Start date
SuAside said:
PhredBean said:runab0ut said:
The other amusing billboard referance: SuperNova, a mens club.
Nova was the female Ghost protagonist of Blizzards scrapped console FPS.
I'd hit it. Hard.
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
According to PCGP Episode 83: Starcraft 2 Exclusive,
It's kind a relief to heard that most of the original developer (no Bill Roper here. He left and founded Flagship studio and is makind Hellgate:London which is Diablo in fpv) are now in the SC2 developer team.
Compare that to Fallout 3...
It's kind a relief to heard that most of the original developer (no Bill Roper here. He left and founded Flagship studio and is makind Hellgate:London which is Diablo in fpv) are now in the SC2 developer team.
Compare that to Fallout 3...
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
Hmmm, I really wanted to keep out of this argument but when I see such baseless assumptions made, I have to dig in.
Starcraft had more strategy than TA? How so? In TA you REALLY had options when it came to defenses (plasma batteries, lasers, missile launchers, anti-nuke missiles, etc). Starcraft had, one anti air building and one ground defense building. Sure the protoss had photon cannons that could shoot air and ground but pretty much, your defenses were VERY limited. Starcraft had very few units per race and your options were limited to air and ground units. Big fucking whoop. TA had 3 tiers of tech, air, ground bots, ground vehicles AND naval units. When you attacked you had options: will I do a land assault with lots of units or will I assault from all available assets (air, ground and sea) with less units (I am simplifying in the sake of brevity, there were MANY other strategies). In TA you could reclaim some of the metal from lost units and there was a unit that could resurrect those wreckages. In TA putting your units in patrol achieved positive results. You could put construction aircraft in patrol and they would repair units and buildings automatically. This eliminated a factor that pissed me off royally in Starcraft. Having to fucking manually repair every damn unit. There's strategy in Starcraft you say? Bullshit I say.
Starcraft does have its fine points and thus if you are going to extol its virtues, it should be the ones it has and not the ones you think it has. Starcraft had varied engagements due to having three VERY different races. Each unit was worth more than in TA because they had unit abilities. If you want to point out Starcraft's strong points, go ahead. I pointed out the one that has been stated in the thread which is verifiable.
I'm not saying one is better than the other because that would be comparing oranges to apples. TA is about strategy and Starcraft is about tactics. Two very different concepts which shouldn't be confused. Both games had its fair share of assholes that ruined the online experience for me and relegated me to LANs and skirmishes with the AI. (Koreans and their Zerg Rushes, assholes in TA whose "strategy" was to set waypoints from 20 factories and put cheap tanks in infinite production mode (with construction units helping, you would be steam rolled if you didn't play your cards right), map hackers and such).
Both games were a bitch to mod. Cavedog games went bankrupt and thus no further patches were released so you had to manually fix unit conflicts if you added any units and buildings. Blizzard are assholes who shutdown every cool mod that I had seen released for Starcraft (some of them left the original Starcraft story in the dust).
Starcraft didn't "win" and TA didn't "lose". Sales aren't only about a product being "good" or "bad". I could say that Starcraft sold more copies because its a simplified shitfest that sold well because any retard can play it. It would be a completely wrong statement as I know several Starcraft fans that really made the game fly. I put the commercial failure of Cavedog Games to the circumstances of the industry that it had to live in. Innovation is not always accepted and you could have the best product in the world and it could fail. Look at Fallout. Best RPG I played, yet it wasn't the best selling RPG of it's time. To conclude the rant, I would like to point out that lambasting one game would be like comparing an artist to another one. Monet is better than Buonarroti? No, they had different styles.
Starcraft had more strategy than TA? How so? In TA you REALLY had options when it came to defenses (plasma batteries, lasers, missile launchers, anti-nuke missiles, etc). Starcraft had, one anti air building and one ground defense building. Sure the protoss had photon cannons that could shoot air and ground but pretty much, your defenses were VERY limited. Starcraft had very few units per race and your options were limited to air and ground units. Big fucking whoop. TA had 3 tiers of tech, air, ground bots, ground vehicles AND naval units. When you attacked you had options: will I do a land assault with lots of units or will I assault from all available assets (air, ground and sea) with less units (I am simplifying in the sake of brevity, there were MANY other strategies). In TA you could reclaim some of the metal from lost units and there was a unit that could resurrect those wreckages. In TA putting your units in patrol achieved positive results. You could put construction aircraft in patrol and they would repair units and buildings automatically. This eliminated a factor that pissed me off royally in Starcraft. Having to fucking manually repair every damn unit. There's strategy in Starcraft you say? Bullshit I say.
Starcraft does have its fine points and thus if you are going to extol its virtues, it should be the ones it has and not the ones you think it has. Starcraft had varied engagements due to having three VERY different races. Each unit was worth more than in TA because they had unit abilities. If you want to point out Starcraft's strong points, go ahead. I pointed out the one that has been stated in the thread which is verifiable.
I'm not saying one is better than the other because that would be comparing oranges to apples. TA is about strategy and Starcraft is about tactics. Two very different concepts which shouldn't be confused. Both games had its fair share of assholes that ruined the online experience for me and relegated me to LANs and skirmishes with the AI. (Koreans and their Zerg Rushes, assholes in TA whose "strategy" was to set waypoints from 20 factories and put cheap tanks in infinite production mode (with construction units helping, you would be steam rolled if you didn't play your cards right), map hackers and such).
Both games were a bitch to mod. Cavedog games went bankrupt and thus no further patches were released so you had to manually fix unit conflicts if you added any units and buildings. Blizzard are assholes who shutdown every cool mod that I had seen released for Starcraft (some of them left the original Starcraft story in the dust).
Starcraft didn't "win" and TA didn't "lose". Sales aren't only about a product being "good" or "bad". I could say that Starcraft sold more copies because its a simplified shitfest that sold well because any retard can play it. It would be a completely wrong statement as I know several Starcraft fans that really made the game fly. I put the commercial failure of Cavedog Games to the circumstances of the industry that it had to live in. Innovation is not always accepted and you could have the best product in the world and it could fail. Look at Fallout. Best RPG I played, yet it wasn't the best selling RPG of it's time. To conclude the rant, I would like to point out that lambasting one game would be like comparing an artist to another one. Monet is better than Buonarroti? No, they had different styles.
Regardless, Starcraft is better story wise. You can't get emotionally attached to a clunky box of metal that shoots shit, right?
Let's make it a threesome.Mikael Grizzly said:SuAside, I want to make sweet mental love to you for that post.
Screenies don't look bad, but maybe a little too polished. I hope they'll keep the winning formula and won't toss in too much extra shit just for the hell of it.
I still play TA now and then. It's hard to beat that kind of gameplay.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
What's the problem with Zerg rushes? At most I see it as a problem with the game (which was somehow fixed in latest patches by making the Spawning Pool more expensive) not with the people who use it. If the game allows you to, why not do it? It's not cheating or something like that.
I have more problems with people who want "development time", which means time for them to build 100 cannons around the base. I'd never play with someone like that.
Edit:
OK, gameplay trailer was released, it looks great and all that shit, but what the fuck is GG? Probably something obvious, but I just can't figure it out.
Oh, right.. fuck it. It means Good Game. Duh.
I have more problems with people who want "development time", which means time for them to build 100 cannons around the base. I'd never play with someone like that.
Edit:
OK, gameplay trailer was released, it looks great and all that shit, but what the fuck is GG? Probably something obvious, but I just can't figure it out.
Oh, right.. fuck it. It means Good Game. Duh.
Dracon M'Alkir
Vault Senior Citizen
Time to throw my opinion into the topic.
I have full confidence and faith in Blizzard that this game will come out just like the old one, extremely good, a potent RTS that will last us for a very long time.
I've sat on the edge of my seat several times waiting for new Blizzard games to come out, and not once had they ever dissapointed me. Only World of Warcraft managed to do that, and it wasn't even Blizzard's fault - they can't account for the retarded actions of other players on an MMORPG.
In any case, we should look forward and be happy that our most favorite RTS games are being recreated extremely well.
Here's a few examples of things that have been granted to us by teh almighty technogod (or gaming companies,
)
1. Total Annhiliation -> Supreme Commander
2. Tiberian Sun -> Command and Conquer 3
3. Starcraft -> Starcraft 2
Now, with this sort of stroke of luck in mind, I believe that we're set to see ALL of the good old RTS games recreated.
I have full confidence and faith in Blizzard that this game will come out just like the old one, extremely good, a potent RTS that will last us for a very long time.
I've sat on the edge of my seat several times waiting for new Blizzard games to come out, and not once had they ever dissapointed me. Only World of Warcraft managed to do that, and it wasn't even Blizzard's fault - they can't account for the retarded actions of other players on an MMORPG.
In any case, we should look forward and be happy that our most favorite RTS games are being recreated extremely well.
Here's a few examples of things that have been granted to us by teh almighty technogod (or gaming companies,
)1. Total Annhiliation -> Supreme Commander
2. Tiberian Sun -> Command and Conquer 3
3. Starcraft -> Starcraft 2
Now, with this sort of stroke of luck in mind, I believe that we're set to see ALL of the good old RTS games recreated.
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
DarkLegacy said:
Now that you mention it, I want to see Dark Reign 3. It has engaging story and no one can forget the battlecry of Martyr
Interesting to note that all those game are (or will be) successful simply because they didn't change a great formula that works, i.e. they didn't "next-gen" it.
Dracon M'Alkir
Vault Senior Citizen
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Completely true.
keyser Soeze
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
8)
DR2 wasn't really worth the name though.zioburosky13 said:Now that you mention it, I want to see Dark Reign 3. It has engaging story and no one can forget the battlecry of Martyr
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
zioburosky13 said:
Jazz to Moonbase
Jazz to Moonbase
-Cool
Anywho, everyone else notice that marines and reapers use gauss weaponry?