there was something interesting in the march issue of PC Gamer where it reviwed UT3, right off the bat, the reviewer said something like, why do people buy this year's latest and newest BMW when it is not really that much different from that of last year with a minor additons of bells and whistles. But then, people still do because they want to own the most up to date model for the sake of having it. Well..you can view it as, people don't like change that much or it is hard for them to get used to something elase other then what they are used to liking when own that something means prestige or gives them certain "feeling different" status. I guess starcraft has come to be assoiate with that.

Knowing how to play starcraft or being an SC fan doesn't necessarily bring prestige or gives people bragging right, but i think Blizzard knows that if they change the formula, they risk alienating or even risk angering the existing strong fan base. I think they learned a long time ago, for their fans, their games has to be like "the more things change, the more it has to feel the same." Another good example of this is..well look at the C&C series. Ever since its inception from C&C 1. to Red Alert 1 and 2, to C&C generals, to C&C3, the same basic playing premises are the same.

My 2 cents...

When a game becomes a "classic" there is never any "going back"...

The example in my life would be Homeworld. What a story, what a game (I get chills remembering... ) Then there came HW:Cataclysm which was a very nice addition to the story (because it never claimed to be the "sequel" to homeworld). Sadly, that is not where this story ends..... enter Homeworld 2. In my opinion there was/is nothing about Homeworld 2 that made it "better" than its predecessors. In the end HW2 paled in comparison to HW1 & HWC. I believe that happened for one reason and one reason only.

Once a game reaches "classic" status, nothing can ever replace it. It's like saying "we've found the best thing" (even if it isn't the best, it "feels" like the best) and then trying to best that. It just never happens. The older you get, the more you realize how true my previous statement is.


- monk out


Some other examples:
Speedball 2 vs. the current re-make (Speedball 2 tournament)
Operation Flashpoint vs. ArmA (Armed Assault)
*sigh
"classics" ruined by a remake/sequel.

there is also another thing i forgot to mention, i don't think Blizzard has any intentions of just forcusing on strategy rather than tactics for SC2, from what i have read from various previews and also interviews from their devs, SC2 will not be like Sup Com where you can zoom out all the way and can simulataneously control 3000+ units. I always think SC1 plays like chess after they patched the AI 20 times or so. For every unit there will always be a unit countering. One thing that annoyed me to no end about SC1 is its music.

The next game that has really lousy music is the newly Lost Empire Immortals. Oh my god, the music for the opening menu screen at the beginning is painful to hear. *shudders*

well i agree with this saying, that you should never fix what isnt broken, but my old windows 95 computer that runs starcraft sure isnt broken but i still upgraded to a crysis killing machine. Some things may not be broken, but that doesnt mean that people are still going to like them 10 years after they are thrown into the market. People like starcraft nowadays for what it is worth and the nostalgic feel it gives, not because it is so much an amazing achievment by today's standards. Lets face it, people who had actually played starcraft back in '98 will have a ball for a while on it, but those who never did will see starcraft 2 as just another fast paced action RTS with a bunch of creatures called the zerg that have big-ass claws and live on purple goo.

Starcraft 2 needs something more than just some cool new graphics to make people play it. Now, i would bet anything that the name starcraft alone would make a game sell out just like halo does. I could make a game about sewing and bead-making in space and call it "starcrafts" and people would buy it expecting some cool space action. But i would bet anything that after the initial surge of happiness that lasts about a week, the hype will dissappear and the online servers will empty out, except for those few dedicated individuals.

So what does starcraft 2 need in order to increase its fan base to the newer generation of gamers who never played the original? Something we don't expect. Look at the Half Life series. Half Life 1 was huge and it was awesome, as it refined the FPS genre in the same way that starcraft refined the RTS scene. Half Life 2 came out and it had the same basic gameplay, run from here to there, killing zombies and headcrabs with the occasional jumping puzzle, and as with all sequals, it came with way better graphics. But the game would not have sold had it not had something else to offer, and that, my friends, came in the form of the source engine, which was the most amazing gaming engine i know i had ever scene and it still is (with possible exception to the new Unreal engine for Gears of War 2). Another example is Doom 3. A highly nostalgic game that came back with the same general gameplay but with AMAZING graphics. But it still offered something else, and that was fear, and a much improved story with better pacing and gameplay. Yet another (and i know i am dragging on) is Call of Duty 4. Nobody can disagree that the WW2 series lost its kick after Call of Duty 2. I hated Call of Duty 3. But then Call of Duty 4 came out with better graphics and the same gameplay, but by god, it was set in modern times with modern tactics and that is by far what made it amazing.

So what in the hell could starcraft do to make itself a good sequal like Doom or Half Life 2? hell if i know. Like i said in my other reply, they could include some more in-depth options like diplomacy and trade. maybe you can have diplomatic relations between other players of the same race, like serg-serg evolution sharing and protoss-protoss trade or something. Maybe they can have 2 fields of gameplay at once; one on the ground where marines and hydralistsks are fighting, and one in space above the planet where there is an air war going on between protoss scouts and battlecruisers. Maybe they should have put in a cool first person perspective so that you could fight alongside your marines in battle and help them out yourself. But i just don't think graphics and nostalgia alone will make starcraft 2 an ultra memerable game like the first one was.

But i can hope. I loved starcraft like it was my own blood and i still have it installed on my crysis killing machine simply because i find it fun to go back and play it from time to time. But if #2 is the same as before, i will play it even less, kind of like my current girlfriend. No, i was only kidding, dont ban me.

I don't mean any offense to anyone. I'm just stating what really bothered me about the original game, why I stopped playing it, and what elements from other games (Rise of Nations/Legends, Sins, and so on) that I find engrossing that Starcraft could borrow to increase my interest in the game. I own both Starcraft and Brood War. Actually, I own all of the Blizzard RTS games up to Warcraft 3 (without expansion). I have grown tired of the formula used in those games and want to see newer, modern, and epic RTS additions thrown into the mix (this is primarily why I play Sins and never even considered some of those other games like Universe at War). I know Blizzard doesn't want to alienate their current fans, but if they want to reach out to people who aren't their fans then my criticisms are my way of saying how they could reach out to me. I would love to buy the game (I buy a lot of games), but if I don't find it appealing enough then I won't get it. I recognize there is give and take here too. You can't please all the people all the time.

Honestly, I have never watched any of the pro matches and that applies to ALL games regardless of if they're RTS, FPS, or something else. I'm not a competitive player and have no interest in professional gaming. I play for my own personal enjoyment. When I cite things like unit spam, carrier rushes, zergling rushes, defense tree rushes, and so on I'm recounting my experiences trying to play on battlenet online against other random people or with/against friends. You'll never find me spectating and once in a blue moon I will watch a replay if something truly impressive happened.

And no, I'm not talking about "noob 'fastest maps'". I don't even know what those are. If a game is over in 15 minutes I'm heavily disappointed. I expect to spend 1 to 4 hours playing an RTS game. I continue to bring up Rise of Nations since every bout in that game went around 1.5 to 3 hours, which I find to be the sweet spot for me. Sins can get very close to that depending on how things are set up.

I am _definitely_ not getting SC2, at least not for the core multiplayer. I ended up getting Warcraft 3, but that's because the map editor is so versatile you can practically make new games for it. However, given how only DotA seems to be the only played map, even SC2 is looking bleak in that area.

But with this much emphasis on micro/macro? And calling having to select 5 different barracks and make them each build a marine a "skill"? I'm sorry, that's retarded. I want a game that requires real skill, not a game that requires you to be issue 10 orders per second because your units are stupid and won't use cover or attack the units they are effective against. What requires more skill? Bringing 10 battlecruisers to a battle while your opponent brings 8, or being the one with 8 battle cruisers focusing fire and getting all of your yamamoto cannons off on different targets to ensure a lossless victory against greater numbers? Either the game mechanics should change (so damanged units aren't as effective), or the units should be intelligent enough to manage this kind of stuff on their own. Let me focus on real strategy, not on rapid fire clicking.

That is all truth.........in Korea.

In Korea there is a different mentality when it comes to multiplayers game and winning. He said koreans look down on people who play noob fastest maps. Thats very different in the US, people actually look down on people who micromanage things and try to come up with a elaborate strategy to defeat their opponent. The US player base is more a "power player", while the Korean player actually likes to build, develop, grow, micro, and use fancy skills.

m8chor said it perfectly, As an asian, he values micro, strategy and skills. Here in the US, and you can read any thread here on Sins' multiplayer strategies, people value more the power playing style and "rushing" and winning at all costs.

And from past experiences on the MMORPG genre, games of those type made with the Asian market in mind usually bomb in the USA (ex. Lineage 2, RF Online), and vice versa, games made with USA in mind usually fail in Asia.

I doubt the RTS genre will be much diferent.

tbh my excitement for sc 2 is waning a bit. I am not too impressed from what I saw of the zerg so far. but then what do I expect, a totally different game? meh, I'll just wait and see, read some reviews and hope the story update will be good. it doesnt look bad though, just not as cool as the original.

that said, blizz still have tons of money, so the undoubtely have the resources to spend as much time and care on it to deliver a polished and good product, thats for sure. probably you just grow sceptical of sequels having witnessed many disappointments over the years.

Whether or not SC2 will be a decent game remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure: I would take battle.net even in it's 1998 form over the crap multiplayer interface that comes with just about any "modern" RTS that's been released since, Sins included.

If Blizzard make such dated games then how come none of the "revolutionary" titles that have proceeded Starcraft have been able to do that one simple thing as well as something that came out 10 years ago?