I didn't claim that your friend was biased or anything, I just was mentioning how some people that readily throw out the rehash statement is out of ignorance in defense of their beloved RTS franchise of choice.

I run into this problem all the time in CS:Source which appears to see the worst of it. Players have actually bought the game just to bash what Valve has done to defend the CS 1.6 version they have placed on the proverbial pedestal of FPS. They just see it as a rip off and as a greedy move by Valve. They understand little of the company.

I just hope you realize that by throwing "archaic" out there that it does carry a bit of a condescending tone about it, which is what led me respond to you in the first place.

I realize there are certain individuals out there that want to see more progression in the industry, and dislike when they return to their retro roots (already people are complaining about the new Donkey Kong for its side-scrolling action). I like to see new stuff as much as the next guy, but there is a limit even to that. Just look at Dark Void - I think that game utterly failed by trying to be "innovative."

Everyone knows that SC2 is still overshadowed by the giant of a game that is its derivative. But it's still in its infant stages, no one really knows its potential yet. SC1 still surprises me to this day with what the pros come up with in terms of strategy. Ironically enough, WC3 which we both agree has been the most innovative RTS of there's to date, wasn't as popular in viewership because the hero system was just plain boring to watch. Let's see what SC2 becomes, let's see if it can still do what SC1 did to the genre and show us just how deep a game like that can be.

Not everyone wants to see a complete revamp of the old system, they want the foundation of the game to stay the same. Just remember that not everyone sees that as archaic, my friend.

Your mistake is that you keep relegating me to the camp of fanboys that scream "Starcraft sucks!" How many times do I have to say that it is great at what it does? So great, that it shines as a PC game.

However, I have said and will keep saying that newbies who have never played RTS before, should not buy/play SC2 and think this is what the genre's gameplay at its zenith is all about.

Just like people should not play UT2, and think that run-n-gun gameplay is what competitive FPS is all about at its best. If this newbie FPS gamer plays it and says "So I'm supposed to run around the block in a circle, and that's how I win? I guess there is no such thing as a video game truly capturing urban combat..." then he's misinformed by the hype of popular arcade-y FPS franchises. The genre is evolving, and can evolve, to capture true urban combat.

Ofc SC1/2 is deep. If you like it, fine. You're not who I'm talking to. I'm telling newbies who have never played a RTS before, or who played Warcraft 2 back in the day, and never touched a RTS since: the RTS genre has evolved since those early games, but SC2 doesn't show that.

Edit: Here's another opinion from another member of our DOW1 community balance mod team. This is a dedicated RTS player who will beat you in SC2 playing with 1 hand, once you give him a few days to train in this new game.

RTS genre doesnt have to be reinvented . The top games were in the late 90s , early 00s .

sc2 being what it is is a good thing . Its a cookie cutter RTS that is mega polished and has super support . The huge community is an added bonus .

Also , the developers tried stuff during the beta , but once settled on an approach , they stand by it and improve it . They don't reinvent the game every 3 months or so .

Their patching efforts are much better too . Small changes over time , and no hammering balance .

Whilst i fullheartedly consider dow2 to be the superior game when it comes to pure gameplay , everything around it is a fraking shitstorm . Starcraft 2 is the oposite . Cookie cutter gameplay wrapped up in brilliance .

Like i said , the RTS genre does not need reinventing . It needs solid consistent gameplay and exelent support to thrive .

His final conclusion is a little different than mine, but our impressions on SC2 while reaching those conclusions are the same.

mlai
Your mistake is that you keep relegating me to the camp of fanboys that scream "Starcraft sucks!" How many times do I have to say that it is great at what it does? So great, that it shines as a PC game.

Don't worry, I didn't officially place you in particular into that camp. I'm just saying some of your...the people that echo your opinion...tend to be rude about the whole thing.

mlai
Ofc SC1/2 is deep. If you like it, fine. You're not who I'm talking to. I'm telling newbies who have never played a RTS before, or who played Warcraft 2 back in the day, and never touched a RTS since: the RTS genre has evolved since those early games, but SC2 doesn't show that.

I hardly believe a newbie would be that concerned about the evolution of the genre anyway. Or would at least nitpick that much about gameplay. My best guess is that they'll follow what their friends recommend or wherever more of the hype lies.

Now how about a RTS controlled by a touch screen? That will get a lot of newbie's attention and maybe will attract others not ordinarily fond with the genre.

As far as the quote you brought up, I think when that guy mentions "cookie cutter," this can be interchanged with "simplified" in the name of game mechanics. SC2 won't offer realistic strategies you'll find in DoW2 and such. But notice he won't outright call SC2 a complete rehash, because it isn't.

I'm still just taking issue with how conceited you're coming off as about the whole thing, placing these other RTS's above the rest. SC2 is as much a part of 2010 as these other ones. It's like a present-day Mustang - still reminiscent of that classic sports car you had back in the 70's, yet it feels different when you drive it. It's equipped with all of the up-to-date parts.

On a side note, I'd very much like to take you up on your offer concerning your DoW mod friend. Though I'm not really sure how I'll know he's only using one hand. ;)

And if this isn't such a new game, why would he need to "train" for it? Not as rehashed as you think, careful!

blindsk
I hardly believe a newbie would be that concerned about the evolution of the genre anyway. Or would at least nitpick that much about gameplay.

I'm not talking about the strategies and build orders. I'm talking about more flashy things, such as the modern melee vs ranged units mechanics that I discussed earlier. Such modern innovations offer flashiness, realism, and added depth.

As far as the quote you brought up, I think when that guy mentions "cookie cutter," this can be interchanged with "simplified" in the name of game mechanics.

SC isn't simplified. It's artificial. There's a difference.

When he says cookie cutter, in context he means formulaic, been-there-done-that.

But notice he won't outright call SC2 a complete rehash, because it isn't.

So when he says cookie cutter, he means it as a compliment, huh? OMG, I feel like I'm debating with a Creationist...

On a side note, I'd very much like to take you up on your offer concerning your DoW mod friend.

Train hard until then, and maybe you'll last 5 minutes.

mlai
When he says cookie cutter, in context he means formulaic, been-there-done-that.

So when he says cookie cutter, he means it as a compliment, huh? OMG, I feel like I'm debating with a Creationist...

You're missing the point - I'm disagreeing with his usage of "cookie cutter." Of course I know the literal meaning, but in this context, I think this is what he meant to say. And hey, cookie cutter could be meant as a compliment. As I've stated before, I'm glad SC2 has neglected to change certain things to achieve your "next-gen" quota.

Luckily for you this isn't a debate on Creationism vs. Evolutionism then, is it? Besides, my area of study permits me to side with the Evolutionists anyway.

To sum up this whole argument, it's obvious what's going on here. Anyone interested in SC2 will notice how there is a huge divide in gamers concerning this game. It's either you love it or you hate it - rarely is anyone on middle ground. I poked around the internets and found similar issues on Amazon that we have taken up here.

The naysayers generally all say:
- Blizzard has been greedy: only giving us a third of the campaign when all of their other titles included the other two.
- No LAN play so friends can get together.
- SC2 is SC1 with better graphics.

Heading over to IGN and looking at the player reviews, one guy will give it a perfect 10 claiming "it's the best PC experience of my life." Then the next review down gives it a 4 with the title, "does not meet my expectations on so many levels compared to the current RTS games out there."

So there you have it - between mlai and I, we've somehow captured what's happening all over the internet into one little debate.

The only thing I can say now for a new player is either to try the game out yourself and decide on your own, or maybe look to the professional reviews. Metacritic gave this game a 97, which is the highest score I've ever seen given to a PC game by them. It even beat one of my favorite games of all time, Half-Life 2, somehow.

Just a few other quotes...

GamesRadar
In many ways, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty feels like StarCraft 2.0 – and that’s a good thing

Wired
similar to Xbox Live and PSN, which is a welcome change from the archaic matchmaking of Battle.net in previous Blizzard games

These are just professional sources. But go ahead and read through mlai's posts. If what he is saying somehow strikes a chord with you, then maybe you'd want to avoid this game, or wait until it's marked down in price.

Just found my first evidence for some resentment regarding the new game.




Gametrailers did give them a pretty positive review though.

Yes! I had to laugh when I saw that. SC2 - making the most of Facebook where no other industry game has gone before!

You should've also seen the community backlash when Blizzard wanted to integrate this into their forums, where posting there would reveal your real name. Their goal was to eliminate trolling. But just imagine any modern-minded company (or professor, in my case!) searching your name online - obviously a popular name like Blizzard will pop up with all of your forum posts listed in detail. Scary thought.

The only point I didn't understand from that checklist was the multiplayer replays...maybe someone made this very early into the beta? Because that was one thing that impressed me in the post-game menu: the replays were always there to download even after your game has completed, and they're backwards compatible (you can skip back to certain sections). There's various tracking values you can show as well - APM, army value, resource collection rate - it's functionality I've never seen before in a replay system.

How about LAN and chat rooms? Well, I never really used the chat rooms much, but I understand people's complaints there. LAN on the other hand, I'm disappointed with. Apparently they're trying to reduce pirating, but I've already heard of plenty single-player cracks. Maybe they should've used Ubisofts uncrackable system which is still standing today!