Gee. Does that sound familiar?
Starcraft and Warcraft and 1337-speak, oh my
- Thread starter Mori
- Start date
Plasma-pip
First time out of the vault
Oh, yes, using two hands at the same time is infinitely more engaging than using your brain. 
All I know about Starcraft 2 is that when my girlfriend and I (both Starcraft fans) watched the gameplay vids, we both remarked "That looks exactly like the original SC, only with updated graphics".
I dunno if that's good or bad. If something ain't broke, I guess you shouldn't fix it...but what I saw of Starcraft 2 looked pretty boring. I could have gone for at least one new playable race. Or maybe it's simply hard to make gameplay vids of RTS titles "exciting".
I dunno if that's good or bad. If something ain't broke, I guess you shouldn't fix it...but what I saw of Starcraft 2 looked pretty boring. I could have gone for at least one new playable race. Or maybe it's simply hard to make gameplay vids of RTS titles "exciting".
Forhekset said:
No one's ever happy enough, I suppose. There were several new units and abilities, I think that's enough for me. If you add on too many bells and whistles for each sequel, you'll end up with a cluster fuck in the end.
Starcraft 2 looks amazing. Period. And it stays true to the prequel, so what is there to complain about? Now, FO3 on the other hand...
yevinorion
First time out of the vault
Well, i don't mind at all if it is "Starcraft with updated graphics" as I loved the original, and I never really played it for competition, just for story (same with the Warcraft games), so that alone is reason enough for me to look into it. 
However, Blizzard has a tendency to keep secrets so who knows what may be revealed between now and the launch.
However, Blizzard has a tendency to keep secrets so who knows what may be revealed between now and the launch.
I agree with both you guys - I loved the first SC game as well as the expansion. I played them more for the story than anything, honestly. I'd be happy with yet another expansion if there weren't going to be a full-fledged sequel.
That being said, somehow I was just expecting a little more out of the "OMGWTF IT'S SC2" announcement. I'll gladly buy it and play the hell out of it, but a few new units and abilities...that sounds like expansion material, not sequel material. I realize they overhauled the graphics, but I can still play the original game to this day in all its 2D glory and be happy with it.
But if you have a successful formula, I guess there's not much reason to mess with it.
That being said, somehow I was just expecting a little more out of the "OMGWTF IT'S SC2" announcement. I'll gladly buy it and play the hell out of it, but a few new units and abilities...that sounds like expansion material, not sequel material. I realize they overhauled the graphics, but I can still play the original game to this day in all its 2D glory and be happy with it.
But if you have a successful formula, I guess there's not much reason to mess with it.
Forhekset said:
Hell, people might not agree with me, but I found Warcraft III the worst of the series. Sure, I enjoyed the expansions of races, but the hero-things kind of ruined a lot of it, and in the end the whole experience was just less fun.
Not in a big way, but it just wasn't as good as II. Or even I.
You know, I didn't play it for long enough to really get a good feel for the whole Hero thing. But I can say that it's the only Warcraft game I never bothered to finish. Not sure exactly why, but maybe I was really just wanting more of the same and WC3 didn't deliver. A lot of people didn't like the Hero system though, apparently. I guess it tried to inject too much RPG flavor into the RTS mix?Brother None said:
I like RPG/strategy hybrids like Ogre Battle/Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics though. But that's turn-based, so maybe it works better in those series.
Brother None said:
Concerning single player, i'll agree. But most Blizzard games, while a little boring in single after a while, excel in multiplayer mode, and for me Warcraft III was the best in the series for that reason alone. (talking about the zounds of fanmade mods, of course)
Multi was always the strong point of Blizz games.
Oh, and, keep in mind that special units (heroes) were also present in II. And alot of "Beyond the Dark Portal" maps resolved around playing with them.
yevinorion
First time out of the vault
Being a big RPG fan, I loved the Hero idea, but the implementation could have been better. The only downside is it really reduced the size of your armies and such, and made it less about the mass slaughter and focused a bit too heavily on those few hero units. Still, I thought WCIII was a great addition that tried some new things without breaking the formula (too much anyway). WCII is still by far my fave of all the WC games. 
Forhekset said:
Yip. The heroes became too much. Quite frankly, I think they already detracted a bit in WC2, but at least there I could just pretend they were generals, chuck 'em in the middle of the camp and leave 'em there. That wasn't feasible in WC3, where you even had to go out adventuring with your heroes to beat the competition for level-ups. Bah.
Madbringer: I don't like playing MP in any game. Too many idiots online. I enjoyed playing Diablo with people I know, but I've never played WC or SC online. At most with a direct connection with one other guy.
yevinorion
First time out of the vault
Brother None said:
Amen to that. I hated Battle.net, but nothing was better in high school than me and 3 of my friends in one room with computers all networked up and playing SC for hours.
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I talked with my friend about Starcraft 2 and he said that graphics look more sugary due to 3d technology. I agreed with him...Forhekset said:
Brother None said:
None of them type proper English or anything even resembling it. That's my major turnoff from multiplayer games, especially MMORPGS. I would rather play a MUD than a MMORPG. At least there you are playing with people that acknowledge they have passed kindergarten. LAN games are the best, because you can shit-talk straight to someone's face.
Well guys, the key to enjoying a game online is knowing with who to play in the first place. Alot of games are infested with idiots roaming on public servers, and that's discouraging, true. I myself have made enough contacts over the years to be sure i'll be able to enjoy some quality time whenever i want to play WCIII, QI/QIII, Team Fortress etc etc
That's the internet for you, sadly. It wasn't like that six, seven years ago. :/
And don't even get me started on MMORPG's. Idiots and fucktards are the main reason i gave them all a huge miss, and rightly so. Anarchy Online is by far the only MMORPG i can honestly say has the most "normal" (meaning, not completely retarded) demography. Of course, you'll still run into the occasional "HEY MANTHAT"Z A NEIC SWOoERD, CAN YOU GEIV ME SOM CREDITZ plx K?!" guy.
Sigh.
That's the internet for you, sadly. It wasn't like that six, seven years ago. :/
And don't even get me started on MMORPG's. Idiots and fucktards are the main reason i gave them all a huge miss, and rightly so. Anarchy Online is by far the only MMORPG i can honestly say has the most "normal" (meaning, not completely retarded) demography. Of course, you'll still run into the occasional "HEY MANTHAT"Z A NEIC SWOoERD, CAN YOU GEIV ME SOM CREDITZ plx K?!" guy.
Sigh.
