Diablo 3 has gone full popamole.

[Dreaad]

Yes, Blizzard RTS games are polished. They're balanced, dynamic, strategic, and demanding. They're also traditional for more reasons than just nostalgia. They're traditional because that's better.

I'm sorry but the fact remains they simply re made SC1 with a graphics update and a couple of new units... They made this carbon copy with no imagination over a period of around 5 years? Then proceeded to make terrible SP campaigns and release each one at the price of a full game.

 

[Zeriel]

Starcraft ceased to be relevant as a singleplayer game when its multiplayer took off so ridiculously. It's not exactly a surprise that SC2's singleplayer was given little thought. It's also pretty clear the entire game was built from the ground up around multiplayer and the competitive scene. If you're not part of or don't appreciate that scene, it's going to seem like shit to you. That doesn't make it objectively bad, though.

 

[Mrowak]

Starcraft ceased to be relevant as a singleplayer game when its multiplayer took off so ridiculously. It's not exactly a surprise that SC2's singleplayer was given little thought. It's also pretty clear the entire game was built from the ground up around multiplayer and the competitive scene. If you're not part of or don't appreciate that scene, it's going to seem like shit to you. That doesn't make it objectively bad, though.

Objection! I'd say that they actually put a lot of effort in singleplayer campaigns which is evidenced by the amount and technical quality of content. I swear this is the case of making the content dumb on purpose in order to appeal to the masses, as opposed to the outcome of insufficient focus.

 

[Zewp]

They made this carbon copy with no imagination over a period of around 5 years? Then proceeded to make terrible SP campaigns and release each one at the price of a full game.

I think that's the biggest problem with SC2. The fact that they're releasing them as three games that are worthless to anyone not interested in the SP campaigns, but which you're forced to upgrade to because everyone else is. If you don't care about SP, you're essentially paying $60 every few years to get a few new MP units. Sure, you can stick to playing vanilla SC2, but when everyone else is moving over to the new expansion it becomes less and less optional.

That's why I feel SC2 being split into three games is such a major dick move on Blizzard's part. At the very least they should have allowed owners of WoL to play against owners of HotS, except being unable to use the new units.

 

[Zeriel]

Starcraft ceased to be relevant as a singleplayer game when its multiplayer took off so ridiculously. It's not exactly a surprise that SC2's singleplayer was given little thought. It's also pretty clear the entire game was built from the ground up around multiplayer and the competitive scene. If you're not part of or don't appreciate that scene, it's going to seem like shit to you. That doesn't make it objectively bad, though.

Objection! I'd say that they actually put a lot of effort in singleplayer campaigns which is evidenced by the amount and technical quality of content. I swear this is the case of making the content dumb on purpose in order to appeal to the masses, as opposed to the outcome of insufficient focus.

Well, I was generalizing. I don't particularly enjoy the "mainstream" style they've perfected over the last few years in terms of their writing and storytelling, and some design decisions. I still really appreciate their technical perfection (which is what makes every Blizzard game feel so smooth and responsive), but that's about it.

 

[shihonage]

No way in fucking hell is Company of Heroes "much more advanced" than Starcraft 2. It's a different breed of game. It's played completely differently, and frankly, it's not as good.

The reason "traditional" RTSes are preferred by professionals is because of the freedom of expression and the skill cap for which they allow. There is so much you can do if you just have the skills. Two pros may be equally fast, equally brilliant, but they play differently because they're different people.

Yes, Blizzard RTS games are polished. They're balanced, dynamic, strategic, and demanding. They're also traditional for more reasons than just nostalgia. They're traditional because that's better.

It's ironic to rave about freedom of expression in the same post where you deride Company of Heroes and praise Starcraft 2.

Far as I can tell, Company of Heroes is less dependent on "quantity of units" than Starcraft 2 when it comes to winning a game, and that is a sign of superior depth. It is a sign of actual "strategy" being more on the forefront than mastering the build orders and efficient generation of new units.

 

[Zeriel]

No way in fucking hell is Company of Heroes "much more advanced" than Starcraft 2. It's a different breed of game. It's played completely differently, and frankly, it's not as good.

The reason "traditional" RTSes are preferred by professionals is because of the freedom of expression and the skill cap for which they allow. There is so much you can do if you just have the skills. Two pros may be equally fast, equally brilliant, but they play differently because they're different people.

Yes, Blizzard RTS games are polished. They're balanced, dynamic, strategic, and demanding. They're also traditional for more reasons than just nostalgia. They're traditional because that's better.

It's ironic to rave about freedom of expression in the same post where you deride Company of Heroes and praise Starcraft 2.

Far as I can tell, Company of Heroes is less dependent on "quantity of units" than Starcraft 2 when it comes to winning a game, and that is a sign of superior depth. It is a sign of actual "strategy" being more on the forefront than mastering the build orders and efficient generation of new units.

Starcraft has plenty of strategy. It just happens to be something that happens after you find out which player is quicker on the draw and better about fundamentals. I think this is one reason a lot of people like it--it has more to it than knowing what strategy to use. Being able to have perfect build order while controlling every unit well and have an overarching strategy for the match is a lot harder to master than any one of those things.

 

[shihonage]

Starcraft has plenty of strategy. It just happens to be something that happens after you find out which player is quicker on the draw and better about fundamentals. I think this is one reason a lot of people like it--it has more to it than knowing what strategy to use. Being able to have perfect build order while controlling every unit well and have an overarching strategy for the match is a lot harder to master than any one of those things.

It's also harder to pull my own teeth than go to a dentist.

Once a player loses a notable portion of resources, he's essentially circling the drain, unless his opponent makes a really big mistake. This reliance on ADD-nightmare-micromanagement weakens the "strategy" element of the game severely.

 

[suejak]

Well, it's both "control" and "strategy". There's nothing ADD about it. It's physical alertness and ability.

 

[Zewp]

Claiming that SC2 is more strategic than CoH.

 

[Rahdulan]

You know, for when you need your screen cluttered with crap.

 

[Akratus]

Diablo 3 makes me so fucking angry. The fact that blizzard is one of the most succesfull game companies shows how terrible people are.

 

[suejak]

Diablo 3 makes me so fucking angry. The fact that blizzard is one of the most succesfull game companies shows how terrible people are.

Just because of Diablo 3?

 

[Average Manatee]

Good thing I own a PS3. Wouldn't want to miss out on the best version of D3.

 

[Zewp]

Is that an actual screenshot? Holy shit it's fugly on the console.

 

[Akratus]

Diablo 3 makes me so fucking angry. The fact that blizzard is one of the most succesfull game companies shows how terrible people are.

Just because of Diablo 3?

Not just because of Diablo 3, but it is the height of their retardation so far.

Is that an actual screenshot? Holy shit it's fugly on the console.

It's ugly because it's made by Blizzard. Blizzard "artists" think that throwaway-comicbook style of art is good.



So MAJESTIC

 

[Zewp]

Yeah, but I mean in comparison to the PC version, the visuals look like something from the PS2 era.

 

[Zeriel]

Do you guys actually play console games? Most of them look fucking terrible, Blizzard's blur-happy art style for D3 looked pretty awful on PC where we are used to higher standards, but it fits in just fine with consoles.

 

[Horus]

Do you guys actually play console games?

They don't do exclusive Fps or Action game for pc anymore so yes i do play them.

 

[Akratus]

I watched a friend play a game on the Playstation 3.
My literal reaction was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTlq_lFcfdc&list=PLA842C3DED0907BDE

 

[shihonage]

Do you guys actually play console games? Most of them look fucking terrible, Blizzard's blur-happy art style for D3 looked pretty awful on PC where we are used to higher standards, but it fits in just fine with consoles.

Sigh... It has nothing to do with graphics fidelity.