It's cool that blizzard create rts games, which generally are not so popular. And sc2 is better then no sc2. But their skills at making rts are obsolete, they are still at first warcraft level. But for all that, they have some rts culture and traditions, they feel qualify of rts, as opposed to C$C remakers.
There only one genius rts making company - Big Huge Games. If they would decide to create another rts, i'd wait for it so hard. But, sadly, they work on rpg, which will be fucking great, I'm pretty sure ;/
Would be cool if the whole world would love rts as much as koreans do. Or maybe they only love starcraft?
Anyway, audience of rts games is lower by a digit if we compare to 3d shooters or rpg. That's why the quantity of games released during last few years so low for rts and so high for popular game jenres.
Anyway, audience of rts games is lower by a digit if we compare to 3d shooters or rpg. That's why the quantity of games released during last few years so low for rts and so high for popular game jenres.
Then I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were basically claiming that Blizzard's RTS games sucked (not popular). But you were referring to the genre as a whole I see. Yes, it certainly is a magnitude smaller than FPS.
so yea...I would say generally they are not the most popular and not even close to the most popular genres.
Again, result of confusion. I was simply trying to say Blizzard does the best in the genre. Though, LoL is really an RTS compared to the other games you listed.
@EternalWraith: Go Couldn't agree more. I haven't played starcraft 2 in ages actually just because it doesn't entertain me anymore. There are some maps and mods I'm looking forward to, but nothing more.
Generals is no C&C game for me, it doesn't have the C&C elements in it. And Generals 2 doesn't interrest me at all. But Bioware is making it, so who knows...
FYI: The helicopter in the trailer is NOT based off of a Banshee, actually...if anything those helicopters were the inspiration to Banshee's. "Those helicopters", are called "Orca's" and they were in the VERY FIRST C&C game...way to rush to judgement.
On a non-stupid note, I too am skeptical that the game will be good, but I think OneTwo has the right idea- we should just support RTS games in general...beggars can't be choosers!
First of all, in response to EW's point:
I think we've had the discussion before, but I really have to disagree on all fronts. Micro matters a lot less than in games like Warcraft and macro is more important, this is true. And good macro alone gets you into masters league or such. It's at the top level where micro becomes important, though. I suggest you watch some recent Nestea games. Or some of Naniwa's games from really any of the MLG's this year. Or the couple of finales between MMA and MVP from two MLGs ago. We're talking about CONSTANT action here. Not just a-moving. Harassing, drops, constant repositioning of siege tanks, hellions, denying expansions... CONSISTANTLY. The maco is merely the backbone required for all of that. If you really think Starcraft two involves no micro-skill, I dare you to watch a couple of the named games and come back to me with the same conclusion. It's some of the sickest in-game action I've ever seen.
On another note, I don't see how anyone can call StarCraft 2 a 'mediocre game with the Blizzard logo on it'. Even if multiplayer were as bad as you're describing it, it's good because of the campaign alone. There is one heck of a story involved and the campaign has been worked to goddamn perfection. There are tons of ten to twenty second pieces of music to fit the mood and theme. Units are solely introduced in awesome ways. EVERY mission has a different objective that requires a different playstyle. Every map has a completely different theme to it. And heck, the level of detail is obscene. It's near first person reality. Every INCH of surface has been thought through. That's a level of quality I've really only seen in Blizzard games.
CC Generals was one of the first full EA CC games they did after killing westwood, and I HATED Generals, it had no CC play style other than "its an rts" When I first heard about #2... I was... a little...well... I didnt care, could care less.
But read an interview from IGN and it seems they want to take it back to the very core root of CC games. IF this is true, Then I really will look forward to this. (It looks like you can even build walls again, like in the good old CC and CC Tiberium sun.
Going back to the core root seems to be a trend, lately. It started with the new series of C&C games (that involved the GDI and the NOD) and it's been going on with Red Alert 2, the Heroes of Might and Magic series and even games such as Stronghold 3. It's a marketing device, not much more. It's funny because it proves a point. With the release of some majorly terrible Strategy games in the years 2005-2009, people have been whining all over about how the older stuff was more awesome. Developers have been going back to those roots, but the fact that for all the fancy new glitters these new games bring, most of the new games have still been regarded as terrible by the major audience. Which leads to the conclusion that in some instances, it's not just blind nostalgia, but developers do actually make shittier games these days then they did years ago.
actually banshees look a lot like the "orca" from original CC just saying.
The thing is that no one really Looks at one and sees the other, It will just lookj like a rippoff at this point though, not because SC2 is more original(if anyone says Warhammer I will punch you in the face, their games came out 1 and 2 years after, warcraft was based on the Warhammer Book MAYbe)
But because starcraft 2 is more well known, had it been in SC1 it wouldnt have mattered It would be like Streetfighter using a blue ninja.
I'm glad i started a discussion here, but like some others here have already said - I'd not call SC2 a perfect RTS game. I'd call it standard - it delivers what should be delivered, and the crew behind it balances what must be balanced - that's the basic idea. Of course there's the story behind it as well, and the idea behind it is good as hell. But still, it's standard because nothing really new has been added to the RTS genre with SC2, it's just been perfected.
EA messed up C&C 4, but what I'm hoping for is that they get the IDEA behind it right, because IMO, any idea that's good just needs balancing and adding on to become great. If you've got a bad idea, like the one behind C&C 4 was (because god forgive me, that's the worst game I've ever played, seen from a relative perspective), then you're screwed.
I'm glad i started a discussion here, but like some others here have already said - I'd not call SC2 a perfect RTS game. I'd call it standard - it delivers what should be delivered, and the crew behind it balances what must be balanced - that's the basic idea. Of course there's the story behind it as well, and the idea behind it is good as hell. But still, it's standard because nothing really new has been added to the RTS genre with SC2, it's just been perfected.
EA messed up CC 4, but what I'm hoping for is that they get the IDEA behind it right, because IMO, any idea that's good just needs balancing and adding on to become great. If you've got a bad idea, like the one behind CC 4 was (because god forgive me, that's the worst game I've ever played, seen from a relative perspective), then you're screwed.
Starcraft 2 is perfect at what it does, True its missing a few things(Lan, Thanks Activision you greedy bastards), but still, Its near perfect.
The online is great, and campaign is great, the only things that new is an Interactive campaign, I would suggest that by Starcraft 2 The 2nd expansion they put in a co-op Campaign. and new Quickmatch modes.
EA has never once gone to the root of C&C games, and they have even said they have never tried.
The last solid C&C game was C&C Tiberium sun, Next came... C&C TW THis was the first 100% full EA all the way Direct C&C game, no walls, massive change in gameplay, a third race? (I loved the story of the third race.. big time...and I do think it should have been added.. but not in the way they did)...and then the 4th...that not even a C&C game..
Going to the red alerts, red alert and C&C (first) were one in the same, but with a differnt story and units, both rocked... However RE2 took its own direction when TS went in another, thats where the two of those series split up, and why I dont even compare them anymore (dont even get me started on RE3... I bought that the day it came out...still havnt played more than 3 missions).
Point being, they have never once tried to make C&C what C&C was (aka EA) hell when they finaly fully had the 100% license to the C&C titles...what did they do? they came out of generals #1... the most BC C&C game at the time... You no longer has your main construction yard... you have "SCVs" its was a total jip on the serious and never should have ha the C&C logo on it.
I remember when that came out, they had WW staff say just how sad they were with what was happening. A few of the westwood staff that move to EA actully asked to be switched off that project.
Some down right quite when they did the Tiberium twilight.
They know they have not made a single C&C game, they have been maken RTS games with the same story, and sticken the title on it.
They came out in this interview and said, they screwed up, they were already trying to "improve and change the genre" This time, for the first time, they want to make a real C&C game, the kind we knew and loved.
note: the following was typed on iphone, massive fail typos
Is StarCraft a realistic RTS? No. That doesn't mean that it isn't an RTS, though. Do you consider Chess to be a strategy game? If so, then how is StarCraft not?
Is StarCraft a realistic RTS? No. That doesn't mean that it isn't an RTS, though. Do you consider Chess to be a strategy game? If so, then how is StarCraft not?
Personally I dont consider Civilization a real RTS... no ones waits for the other person to move in a war....
I'd just like to point out that Civ is Turn based strategy (TBS) except in multiplayer where turns are simultaneous and whomever is quicker typically has the advantage. As a personal preference, I prefer TBS over RTS because i like taking my sweet time to think of how to counter my opponent. I've tried RTS ladder numerous times but I don't find it as fun because I plain lose out on the macro with my "take my sweet time" antics.
FYI, this game isn't being done by THE BioWare. The name of the developer for this game is BioWare Victory. EA, trying hard to beat Activision in being the most hated company every, has decided to include "bioware" in the names of its studios (e.g. BioWare Mythic).
Not a lot of people seem to be talking about the bad influence EA has had on BioWare, but they REALLY like to bash "actiblizzard" for pandas and popularity lists.
FYI, this game isn't being done by THE BioWare. The name of the developer for this game is BioWare Victory. EA, trying hard to beat Activision in being the most hated company every, has decided to include "bioware" in the names of its studios (e.g. BioWare Mythic).
Not a lot of people seem to be talking about the bad influence EA has had on BioWare, but they REALLY like to bash "actiblizzard" for pandas and popularity lists.
Thats cause Activision needs to get da fuck out of my Starcraft, its like having peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and someone puts some tuna on that shit...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@EternalWraith: Go
Totally agree.
It's cool that blizzard create rts games, which generally are not so popular. And sc2 is better then no sc2. But their skills at making rts are obsolete, they are still at first warcraft level. But for all that, they have some rts culture and traditions, they feel qualify of rts, as opposed to C$C remakers.
There only one genius rts making company - Big Huge Games. If they would decide to create another rts, i'd wait for it so hard. But, sadly, they work on rpg, which will be fucking great, I'm pretty sure ;/
What are you smoking dude? Google SC + Korea sometime.
@Karawasa: Go
google CoD, WoW, LoL, BF3
so yea...I would say generally they are not the most popular and not even close to the most popular genres.
@Karawasa: Go
Would be cool if the whole world would love rts as much as koreans do. Or maybe they only love starcraft?
Anyway, audience of rts games is lower by a digit if we compare to 3d shooters or rpg. That's why the quantity of games released during last few years so low for rts and so high for popular game jenres.
Yeah rts are indeed one of the smallest genere of games... C&c will always have that place in my heart as my first ever rts. I miss Westwood.
Then I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were basically claiming that Blizzard's RTS games sucked (not popular). But you were referring to the genre as a whole I see. Yes, it certainly is a magnitude smaller than FPS.
Again, result of confusion. I was simply trying to say Blizzard does the best in the genre. Though, LoL is really an RTS compared to the other games you listed.
Yeah, my english far from perfect still ;/
@EternalWraith: Go Couldn't agree more. I haven't played starcraft 2 in ages actually just because it doesn't entertain me anymore. There are some maps and mods I'm looking forward to, but nothing more.
Generals is no C&C game for me, it doesn't have the C&C elements in it. And Generals 2 doesn't interrest me at all. But Bioware is making it, so who knows...
FYI: The helicopter in the trailer is NOT based off of a Banshee, actually...if anything those helicopters were the inspiration to Banshee's. "Those helicopters", are called "Orca's" and they were in the VERY FIRST C&C game...way to rush to judgement.
On a non-stupid note, I too am skeptical that the game will be good, but I think OneTwo has the right idea- we should just support RTS games in general...beggars can't be choosers!
First of all, in response to EW's point:
I think we've had the discussion before, but I really have to disagree on all fronts. Micro matters a lot less than in games like Warcraft and macro is more important, this is true. And good macro alone gets you into masters league or such. It's at the top level where micro becomes important, though. I suggest you watch some recent Nestea games. Or some of Naniwa's games from really any of the MLG's this year. Or the couple of finales between MMA and MVP from two MLGs ago. We're talking about CONSTANT action here. Not just a-moving. Harassing, drops, constant repositioning of siege tanks, hellions, denying expansions... CONSISTANTLY. The maco is merely the backbone required for all of that. If you really think Starcraft two involves no micro-skill, I dare you to watch a couple of the named games and come back to me with the same conclusion. It's some of the sickest in-game action I've ever seen.
On another note, I don't see how anyone can call StarCraft 2 a 'mediocre game with the Blizzard logo on it'. Even if multiplayer were as bad as you're describing it, it's good because of the campaign alone. There is one heck of a story involved and the campaign has been worked to goddamn perfection. There are tons of ten to twenty second pieces of music to fit the mood and theme. Units are solely introduced in awesome ways. EVERY mission has a different objective that requires a different playstyle. Every map has a completely different theme to it. And heck, the level of detail is obscene. It's near first person reality. Every INCH of surface has been thought through. That's a level of quality I've really only seen in Blizzard games.
As for this:
Going back to the core root seems to be a trend, lately. It started with the new series of C&C games (that involved the GDI and the NOD) and it's been going on with Red Alert 2, the Heroes of Might and Magic series and even games such as Stronghold 3. It's a marketing device, not much more. It's funny because it proves a point. With the release of some majorly terrible Strategy games in the years 2005-2009, people have been whining all over about how the older stuff was more awesome. Developers have been going back to those roots, but the fact that for all the fancy new glitters these new games bring, most of the new games have still been regarded as terrible by the major audience. Which leads to the conclusion that in some instances, it's not just blind nostalgia, but developers do actually make shittier games these days then they did years ago.
The thing is that no one really Looks at one and sees the other, It will just lookj like a rippoff at this point though, not because SC2 is more original(if anyone says Warhammer I will punch you in the face, their games came out 1 and 2 years after, warcraft was based on the Warhammer Book MAYbe)
But because starcraft 2 is more well known, had it been in SC1 it wouldnt have mattered It would be like Streetfighter using a blue ninja.
I'm glad i started a discussion here, but like some others here have already said - I'd not call SC2 a perfect RTS game. I'd call it standard - it delivers what should be delivered, and the crew behind it balances what must be balanced - that's the basic idea. Of course there's the story behind it as well, and the idea behind it is good as hell. But still, it's standard because nothing really new has been added to the RTS genre with SC2, it's just been perfected.
EA messed up C&C 4, but what I'm hoping for is that they get the IDEA behind it right, because IMO, any idea that's good just needs balancing and adding on to become great. If you've got a bad idea, like the one behind C&C 4 was (because god forgive me, that's the worst game I've ever played, seen from a relative perspective), then you're screwed.
Starcraft 2 is perfect at what it does, True its missing a few things(Lan, Thanks Activision you greedy bastards), but still, Its near perfect. The online is great, and campaign is great, the only things that new is an Interactive campaign, I would suggest that by Starcraft 2 The 2nd expansion they put in a co-op Campaign. and new Quickmatch modes.
@Mozared: Go
EA has never once gone to the root of C&C games, and they have even said they have never tried.
The last solid C&C game was C&C Tiberium sun, Next came... C&C TW THis was the first 100% full EA all the way Direct C&C game, no walls, massive change in gameplay, a third race? (I loved the story of the third race.. big time...and I do think it should have been added.. but not in the way they did)...and then the 4th...that not even a C&C game..
Going to the red alerts, red alert and C&C (first) were one in the same, but with a differnt story and units, both rocked... However RE2 took its own direction when TS went in another, thats where the two of those series split up, and why I dont even compare them anymore (dont even get me started on RE3... I bought that the day it came out...still havnt played more than 3 missions).
Point being, they have never once tried to make C&C what C&C was (aka EA) hell when they finaly fully had the 100% license to the C&C titles...what did they do? they came out of generals #1... the most BC C&C game at the time... You no longer has your main construction yard... you have "SCVs" its was a total jip on the serious and never should have ha the C&C logo on it.
I remember when that came out, they had WW staff say just how sad they were with what was happening. A few of the westwood staff that move to EA actully asked to be switched off that project.
Some down right quite when they did the Tiberium twilight.
They know they have not made a single C&C game, they have been maken RTS games with the same story, and sticken the title on it. They came out in this interview and said, they screwed up, they were already trying to "improve and change the genre" This time, for the first time, they want to make a real C&C game, the kind we knew and loved.
note: the following was typed on iphone, massive fail typos
@EternalWraith: Go
Is StarCraft a realistic RTS? No. That doesn't mean that it isn't an RTS, though. Do you consider Chess to be a strategy game? If so, then how is StarCraft not?
Personally I dont consider Civilization a real RTS... no ones waits for the other person to move in a war....
@Taintedwisp: Go
I never said anything about Civilization... or that Chess was an RTS.
What I'm trying to say is that things don't always need to be perfectly realistic to be strategic.
@Taintedwisp: Go
I'd just like to point out that Civ is Turn based strategy (TBS) except in multiplayer where turns are simultaneous and whomever is quicker typically has the advantage. As a personal preference, I prefer TBS over RTS because i like taking my sweet time to think of how to counter my opponent. I've tried RTS ladder numerous times but I don't find it as fun because I plain lose out on the macro with my "take my sweet time" antics.
FYI, this game isn't being done by THE BioWare. The name of the developer for this game is BioWare Victory. EA, trying hard to beat Activision in being the most hated company every, has decided to include "bioware" in the names of its studios (e.g. BioWare Mythic).
Not a lot of people seem to be talking about the bad influence EA has had on BioWare, but they REALLY like to bash "actiblizzard" for pandas and popularity lists.
Thats cause Activision needs to get da fuck out of my Starcraft, its like having peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and someone puts some tuna on that shit...