Future of Gaming

[TM-Magic]

Well..Those movies are a poor representation of both. The sc one looks like its vs a comp, handled by an amateur. The sc2 one looks like its vs a player, handled by experienced players. There's more strategy than that in sc1 (and a lot of things aren't shown in both). It does make its point tho

If you ask me, the gaming industry is still lacking a lot of creativity tho, just like most scifi films lack good acting and dialogue. The gaming industry needs to get away from always doing the same things...there's certain categories, which are defined and defined well...but it needs to broaden.

For example...in a fighting game, theres a button for block, a button for punch and a button for kick. If you combine these into different combinations, you get different results/moves. In an rpg you run up and repeatedly hit A to attack or B to block or C to cast a spell...but why not combine it with the fighting controls and make a 3rd person rpg with different combinations for different attacks?

That is a simple way of combineing...I'm not sure how good the gameplay would be and I'm not 100% but I think someone's already created that somewhere (maybe not very well if its not very known).

Now Idk if any of you have seen the miniseries "Merlin", but the way magic works in there would make a good game. In there, there are 3 types of magic, each with different difficulties. The first type of magic you can learn has to do with using your hands. You wave them around in a certain way and something happens. The second type is using your voice. You say the magic words and something happens. The third and hardest magic is doing it all in thought.

Again idk if any of you have played this, but the game Nox (by westwood before it was combined with EA games) was an awsome game. The questing...the dialogue...the spells and the way it was all setup was done really well. Now if something like that was combined with something like "Merlin", it would bring up a new type of gameplay that would be fun and challenging.

Nox started off with you are in the present time and you have this orb for an ornament and a dark sorceress casts a spell to get the orb, sending you and it into (I'm not sure if its suppose to be the past or just a different parallel universe) but either way, you get sent there and you meet up with this dude in a hot air balloon that thinks your some evil spirit. You convince him your not and he asks you if you want to become a wizard, conjurer, or warrior.

What makes that game fun and exciting is how its done. It's not just you meet up with some people and they give you some quest, it makes it more elaborate than that. Say you get to town and its being raided by ogres who have already burned half of it to the ground. There were no cut scenes telling you ahead of time, you just happen to go there and its on fire. There you defeat some ogres and are given some subquests to help the people who have lost things.

Now this is an older game nowadays, but the over all questing and feel of it was glorious. To be honest, I'd like to see more of that but combined with some new ideas.

For instance, the whole thing doesn't have to be chronological... say half way through the game there's a 40% chance the village will burn now, a 30% chance it'll burn a little bit later, 20% chance it'll burn towards the end and a 10% chance it won't burn at all. This would make a game exciting to play every time. And I don't mean just do it with the village burning...you can add that same idea to any event. Say the wizard your suppose to meet up with isn't at home but is hunting in the nearby village or on a quest. You can either wait there for him or you can go do some nearby subquests.

These are just a few examples of what could be done to spice up the industry.

 

[VeljkoM]

One question.Can you make smaller posts.People don't like reading that long stuff.

Any way I just want some new RTS and shooter games.Just to be different from already published ones.

 

[TM-Magic]

that was a repost to change the topic back. I don't really like shooters, they're always basically the same. I think a game like Rachet and Clank as a multiplayer shooter would be alright tho. Get some interesting fps going with interesting weapons.

As for RTS, I want to see more stuff like total annihilation (supreme commander...idk its not as good). Epic battles on an epic scale with a lot of different build options. The only problem is it is semi limiting as well. The build order is pretty standard...which I suppose is also fairly standard for any rts. You get a choice of either to tech, build resources or build units and any combination of those 3 which make up different strategies.

I suppose I want to see some RTS games that don't build stuff in the usual manner. Say you start with an HQ that produces people at a given rate and you select them to become soldiers or certain types of builders and you go from there. And the things you collect resources with can move with you. Idk, just a thought lol.

 

[VeljkoM]

Ever heard of Stronghold.There you have main building that makes people and they can become farmers, soldiers...And there is no teach tree and units are limitless.
Or maybe you would like Battle for Middle earth 2.There you can't make one unit but group of units and upgrade individually ever battalion.

But your posts are big.

 

[TM-Magic]

They did the same thing for Command and Conquer 3 with the unit groups, as well as some other games. Stronghold sounds interesting though.

 

[VeljkoM]

Yea it is but I like better old Stronghold.New ones are not that great apart from graphics.
Game is very old but Firefly studios recently made new version of Stronghold Crusader.
It is not like rest RTS.It is realistic in every way.You have to make armor and weapons before making units, apart of mercenaries.And there is lot more resources than gold and wood and you can make real pathable walls and towers...It is unique.

 

[TM-Magic]

Sounds like the game Settlers. The first settlers was amazing, second one isn't as good, third one I've never played, fourth one is pretty good, fifth one totally sucks and the sixth looks alright, only played the demo. The first one was all about getting your resources ready for battle, but takes a long time and requires a lot of patience. Basically you start off with a few resources...wood and stone. You use these to build lumberjack huts and sawmills and stone cutters who in tern cut trees down, saws them into usable wood planks, and cuts stone for building. From there you expand your territory with guard huts or towers and build other buildings including a tool smiths, weapon smiths, iron smiths, gold smiths and different types of mines. The mines supply the iron/gold smiths with iron/coal/gold so they can make steel to make tools/weapons with or gold to give to the soldiers so they fight better. The miners require food which you get by fishing or farming.

It's fairly complex, really slow paced, but really fun. I really like the idea of building up your economy first but it makes a poor multiplayer game since it is so slow.

Edit: There is a warcraft map called Tempus where there are 3 resources...wood stone and food. You build villagers that can gather these things or you can upgrade them into different types of soldiers. It's fairly fun but very simple and it would be cool if the person would keep working on it and expand the idea adding more units and some technologies along with a few more resources.

 

[VeljkoM]

Like that but it is faster.You can change speed of gameplay.There are even more resources then there.But units looked and sound real.But you don't care about resources only.You must take care of people like food, reputation...You have some interesting functions there.
But the game you described sounds like Knights and Merchants.

 

[TM-Magic]

Yeh they added reputation and food and such to settlers6, but if you ask me the gameplay is lacking when you compare it to settlers1. But yeh, I may check it out.

 

[VeljkoM]

Is there religion, fear factor....There are to many things for me to write here.

 

[Gilles]

How can you even speak like that about Starcraft 2 when it is not even finished.
Play it first then say what ever you want.

People like to speculate and argue. It's fun.

And if you don't like it make it your self.

That's the worst argument ever.

Do you think it is easy for Blizzard to make new game when everybody expects to be greatest RTS.

Let's look back a little.

Warcraft 1 - Ground breaking, amazing game.
Warcraft 2 - Ground breakin, amazing game.
Diablo - Ground breaking, amazing game.
Starcraft - Ground breaking, amazing game.
Diablo 2 - Ground breaking, amazing game.
Warcraft 3 - Ground breaking, amazing game.
World Of Warcraft - Ground Breaking, amazing game.

See a trend? I want Starcraft 2 to do the same thing. So far it looks like a beefed up Starcraft, not really that ground breaking. I do admit that I have no idea what they could do to make it ground breaking, but they've done it before, and we the people want to see it again.

 

[VeljkoM]

Why are we again going off topic to that?
It was finally over.

 

[TM-Magic]

I agree. It needs to end before I shoot someone...I don't even understand how someone can say sc2 "is a beefed up sc1".

Its sad to see such people commenting like that. Even if by some miracle it isn't as good as expected, it is because of the hype that made it so...not by blizzard. Those who do not understand that still have a lot to learn.

 

[VeljkoM]

Don't encourage him.He will just post to prove his point then you will show him flaws of his post, then he will ignore you and so on.

 

[Tyranid]

Well if we're talking about RTS games (and strategy games), I find myself liking strategy games like these:
1. Ones where you concentrate upon building an empire/nation/kingdom and work on it's economy like Settlers and Civilizations series.
2. RTS games that are all about warfare on a massive scale, with LOTS of units running around the scren.
3. More tactical ones, where you must think about strategy and such. Like Dawn of War (which also has pretty big warfare) and Starcraft.

My ideal RTS would be a sci-fi setting where players start with forts(these forts would be HUGE) around the world, each controlling one. The maps would be almost ridicilously big, and wouldn't be as simple as RTS maps tend to be (you know, like 1 player in each corner and clear roads surrounded by some trees). You could do alot of upgrades on the fort and expand it. Buildings are built or actually upgraded upon the fort.

Units in the game would be in small groups, like 5 soldiers per a group. Later on you could expand them. They should work like in Dawn of War, where each is in a way it's own unit and has it's own pathfinding, rather than games like BFME 2 where it seems like you are moving boxes rather than groups of units. These squads should also have some sort of veterancy system where they gain exp and level from killing and capturing locations.

On the map there could be alot of captureable places like colonies, armories, abandoned bases, hostile bandit camps and so on. These could give bonuses like more resources, better equipment for squads (you could arm squads with all kinds of different equipment) and unlock new tech and so on.
Resources would be gained from certain captured locations over time.

In midgame or so on, people would gain the possibility to build further, smaller bases and defensive locations around the map to expand their areas. There could be different kinds of mini-base buildings, like colonies (more resources) Strongholds (tought defensive buildings) and barracks (units recruitments buildings) all of these would have upgrades much like the Forts which makes them expand and also unlock more possibilities for them.

Other random things that I'd like to see in it would be terrain covers, with units actually running to the cover and crouching or kneeling on the cover to actually look like they're using the cover. Also destructive terrain. For example blocking some road by blowing up a nearby cliff or creating defences for troops by blowing down a nearby cliff.

This a basic idea of what I'd like to see in a future RTS, althought I doubt we will see one for a long time.

 

[VeljkoM]

Wow I like it.But sounds little like BFME first.Any way I would play this game.

 

[GrandEnder]

An ideal game for me would be a sort of RPG/RTS.

The game would be spread over multiple online servers, which would include a massive city, surrounded by country and other places. In the beginning of the game you would have a weak sword-armed character with light customizable magical abilties. By fighting creeps, with quest systems and whatnot, you could then rise in power. After a while you could split off into an RTS, collecting followers that would assist you. After a certain time, you could build a company, which could then collect more and more people, researching new things to build a larger base, oh, and it could have futuristic weapons aswell.

However, if you remained in rpg form, you would increase in power over time, getting more and more magic with better weapons. You could customize your character's appearance based off their magic and power, along with them wearing armor. You could also work for an RTS player, having them tell you to do missions for them. In reward,for say, they could build you a tank, and you could ride in it.

 

[VeljkoM]

I don't like RPG but i like your idea.I often wanted that kind of game.
Reminds me of Overlord little.It was RPG but you control small army of minions.
They were so funny.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

You want it to be ground breaking, when all the pros and competitive players just want it to be SC1 with 3D graphics. If Blizzard can make it ground breaking and appeal to the competitive players then will you whiners SHUT THE F#$% UP!!! SERIOUSLY QUIT DOUBTING BLIZZARD.

 

[VeljkoM]

Please people.No more about Starcraft1 and 2.It is finished.

 

[TM-Magic]

I like the idea of having 1 person play rts while the units he creates are played by people, I'm sure it's been thought about by a lot of people...however, the gameplay would be horrible, it would require a shit-ton of graphical work, and extremely hard to balance. Basically too much work for a bad outcome to a great idea. You'd have to make 2 different graphics engines...one for the soldiers and one for the rts player...(different interfaces and different terrain/explosion graphics). Then to play it you'd require a LOT of memory/computing power. Then for gameplay, all the soldiers just sit there and wait while the rts player builds.

I mean I suppose you could add creep killing or small quests for them to do, that'd be alright, and you could work your way around all of the problems mentioned above, but for most designers, it's probably too much of a hassle. But a good idea none-the-less.


Here's what I want to see in an RTS.

A massive rts with maybe a dozen different races (maybe start with like 4 and keep adding on as it's played). These races would be 100% unique in every which way.

For example...one could be a magic race that relies on gathering magic crystals that store energies which is what they use to build. This would be a hard race to master since there would be a lot of micro-management with fighting due to having a lot of magic spells. They build by gathering up workers to summon their buildings/units which drains unit mp (mp is used for money, there is no global currency for this race) which can be restored by those crystals.

Another could be your basic human group that requires wood and stone to build, but can also barter with gold with other human groups/neutral passive units on the map. Using swords and shields and bows and such...basically built up like in warcraft.

Another race...lets see...an alien race similar to the zerg, who build massive units/structures but are fairly weak...they gather resources by collecting blood and dna and can mutate allowing them to add different weapons/armors to a body frame, basically allowing you to customize your soldiers. (can be stored and loaded).

And as for the 4th race...a futuristic race that can manipulate bio-matter (plant or animal) into usable resources. They train soldiers who have a lower resource cost but a high time cost but are advanced/fair better in battle.

Basically an rts with VERY unique races with different building methods, resource gathering methods and units. It would be a very hard project to balance, however, I think it would push the rts genre in a slightly different way. Because lets face it, when you say rts, a very certain interface/playing method comes in mind...and well...they shouldn't all be so similar.

 

[Razorbrain]

not to be an a-hole, but if they are supposed to be 100% unique in every way, only one of them can have units

but, to redeem myself in this post, not to look like a total flamer/troll/idiot, im going to do the same

This is basicly what I want in a RTS:

- Many races with few amount of units for a start(I'll tell more later) : Basicly, I want this becouse I'm one of those people who like to get good with many different playstyles rather than to become Uber-Awesome with 1 of them. I'd rather play well with all the Classes in TF2 than to be very very good with only the Pyro(for example).

- No Tiers or Tiered units : I just hate it when there is a "Best unit" for a race, becouse it doesn't leave the player any way to extent his late game(other than combining the best unit with another type of unit(example, Carriers + Arbiters in Starcraft, Battlecruisers + Medics). I know this idea seems very silly, like 1 guy being in one Uber Suit taking on a fully loaded Starcruiser is going to be a fair fight this way, but I think it would make the players think more about their tactics rather than to "get the best units".

- To acquire new types of units, you would have to kill enemy units and buildings and "steal" their techology or "learn" from the battles : Example, we have the Humans on one end, and the Aliens on the other. Humans start out with Marines and Tanks, while the Aliens start out with Acidspitters and Cleavers(just making things up now ). After the Humans have attacked the Aliens, the Marines would be able to research techology into creating some sort of poison to hurt the Aliens more, while the Aliens would be able to research into stronger hides to protect themselfs against those heavy Tank projectiles. I think this is a good idea becouse it would make people focus more on attacking instead of camping all day(which some people do in FFA games , just until there is them and 1 guy left, and then the camper has all these "best units" I was reffering to before). This could also be done when allying people aswell(the races or factions share information with eachother).

I dont care so much for uniqueness, aslong as its balanced(sure, all races being very unique would be great, aslong as its fairly balanced. Another thing I don't care about either is amount of players, or what resources they had to gather(aslong as its more than 1, the numbers after that tend to make difference, but I haven't really thought out if I would want more than 3 or less than or 3 for that matter, and I don't even care if you have to gather them or not, I like both ways).

 

[cheesdude]

"TM-Magic"

I'd appreciate it if you used normal text, like everyone else. Shiny colors don't make you smarter.

Thanks

 

[LordDz]

"TM-Magic"

I'd appreciate it if you used normal text, like everyone else. Shiny colors don't make you smarter.

Thanks

But it stops your eyes from bleeding to death due the wall of text.

 

[TM-Magic]

Yeh uhh, I didn't change my colors to look smarter...I changed them so that my ideal rts commentary would stand out from the rest of my post...so its easier to read. (for most people).

And after thinking about it, that does make me smarter because I understand that different colors have a different effect on the eyes and separating things like that make it easier and more enjoyable to read.

Razorbrain, I don't see why you'd want to pair up medics with battlecruisers but if that's what floats your boat, go for it. What you say isn't necessarily always true, especially in blizzard rts games. A tauren, for example, is the strongest ground unit in the game, but can be taken down by a necromancers and fiends for example. Everything has a counter...yes it's true getting 5 tauren would take out say 2 necromancers and a fiend because they are stronger, but the player also had to tech up to get them. So what I'm trying to say is, they are balanced.

At the same time, I do get what your saying, give the players more choices at the end...in fact let them get any unit and have them be equal. This sounds good, however, I think the game play would be highly lacking (from personal experience that would take too long to explain here).

 

[Tyranid]

Razorbrain, I don't see why you'd want to pair up medics with battlecruisers but if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

But it's totally awesome D:

 

[Razorbrain]

Battlecruisers are as good as dead to an experienced player if there are no medics nearby, becouse of the following abilities

Lockdown
Freeze
Plague(or whatever its called, that red thing that deals damage much as hell in an area )

which are not that hard to research before the enemy has a couple of cruisers. Medics are there to remove the buffs (Restoration ftw)

oh, and i never said that the Tier system is imbalanced

 

[TM-Magic]

Heh, I thought u said that as a joke, but it makes sense. Usually I don't see a game get that far.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

All of you here just rate a game and talk about how it's good or bad only and nothing as in NOTHING but your mapmaking point of view. Don't be so selfish please, thing about that Warcraft III and Starcraft II are in the first place made for Melee and then for mapmaking. The reason why Blizzard started also caring about the mapmaking is because Dota was a perfect example for what awesome things you can do with that world editor. And then the use of custom models etc. that was hardly existing in the SC1 editors. It's true the mapmaking became also a bigger part of a Blizzard RTS game. But gaming as in what you see like hundreds of websites for watching progaming, replays, articles, interviews with players - this is the real fun. Have you played vs top players, have you felt the coolness of competition? I for one have played vs pro gamers, taken part in tournaments and now that I got bored with war3 and continued mapaking (that I've done since SC1). I'm not so good at modelling, better at recreating stuff rather than thinking my own, not that I can't, with inspiration from somewhere I can think and make a model of my own ideas. But I've worked with maps, triggers, modelling, I know how much time it takes, it's mb as much as playing WoW.

At least I've taken part in both sides - gaming and mapmaking. I just saw someone saying here 'gamers would only want a 3d RTS, kinda of pathetic' or in Blizzard forum 'the game is spoiled with these melee competitions' - LOL. Yes, gamers don't care if there is a grass or a tree next to their base or some other doodad. But like everyone else, they want even better graphics and if not some doodads the terrain can give even better enjoyment which is part of the 'imporved game graphics'. Like the current look of melee maps with the space background giving feeling of wider space, not just a plain board called 'terrain'.

Mapmaking is also interesting with all you can do now and will do in SC2, makes interesting things but the SC2 graphics are nice enough to enjoy in melee. My post is just to remind you that all started with melee which has a lot more websites, articles, interviews, etc etc than mapmaking websites. So thinking just about mapmaking is selfish and wrong. I personally would rather play SC2 melee like I've been doing in most of the time than make map X. Something that like war3 - you can play many games for few hours not consume months for making a very detailed map.

May I ask you, you do gr8 maps but, how many people in BNet know about them? The mostly heard names are Dota, Footmen Frenzy, AoS, some TDs, hardly any RPG made map. Sorry I don't see your maps anywhere. Maybe it's all within this THW and wc3c community. The comparison of mapmaking with what has been made for the gaming is futile, so let's not discuss and compare shall we?

 

[TM-Magic]

I do not see where this response has come from. We haven't been talking about the mapping aspect of starcraft in the least bit. We've been discussing the melee game and its tactics as well as ups and downs to the new sc2.

The topic you brought up has nothing to do with this forum and it sounds like you just felt like you had to bash us for things we aren't even talking about. This forum isn't about map making at all. Sure it's on a map making website, but it discusses the differences between starcraft and starcraft II, whether or not an extended campaign is a good idea for an RTS and is extending the campaign a step into a different RTS future. This is the general topic...and its NOT about map making.

You also tell us that we do not play competitively when you know nothing about us. I have played both sc and wc3 competitively and although warcraft melee isn't my cup of tea, I still play starcraft competitively on the side and even though I'll never be able to match a pro sc gamer, I still enjoy the competitive rush and I can watch replays and matches with great interest because I see the strategy of it. I may not be good at it, but I can still see it all.

 

[SanKakU]

I guess you fail to miss my point. New units/buildings and special minerals DO NOT make a new game! Despite being 3D, the special minerals and new units/buildings the core gameplay is IDENTICAL! THEY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY AT ALL ON THAT! For example, see Dawn of War I -> Dawn of War II, Warcraft II -> Warcraft III, and so on. Those sequels did/do ALOT OF THINGS differently! If you still fail to understand my point then bitch get some brains.

if it's not broke, don't fix it

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

I'm like TM-Magic, I don't have much competitive play under my belt at all except a few 1v1s where I either creamed my opponent or had the opposite. I watch a ton of replays however (have over 150 and have watched them all) and know how starcraft is played. Most competitive players want it to remain THE EXACT SAME as Starcraft 1. They don't want a thing changed except the graphics!!! Others want a totally new game that's not remotely similar in play style to the original. How does Blizzard balance this? Well so far I'll leave it up to them since they have never failed at creating a game that excites at least a million people if not 10 million.

 

[Tyranid]

if it's not broke, don't fix it

Re-creating =/= fixing it. It means making a NEW game.

 

[kingbdogz]

Re-creating =/= fixing it. It means making a NEW game.

So far you haven't failed to make me laugh. Your completely wrong, just because your idea of a new game is recreating it with the same story, does not mean it is right.

Take EA for example, see what they did to Red Alert 3? People were hyped about it but it turned out shit. You know why? Because they completely screwed with the core mechanics and now people hate it. Same goes for Tiberium Wars. Plus no SC2 fan or Pro gamer wants the core game to change. Please, please for the love of god consider other peoples opinions first. I understand your opinion, but don't be selfish and think everyone else's is wrong.

 

[TM-Magic]

I agree 100% with that statement, it does seem as if your only considering what you want instead of the things other people want. If they made it exactly how you want it, you'd probably be the only one playing it and as such, you probably wouldn't even hear about it since it needs to be popular to get in the clutches of most people.

 

[VeljkoM]

Here we go again.Didn't either of you learned anything the last time?
People have different ideas and that is it.No use to force them to change it.

 

[kingbdogz]

I wasn't, this has nothing to do with SC2, it's the way he's acting. It's as if he thinks only his opinion is right. No ones is wrong or right, but you've got to accept other peoples opinions too.

 

[Tyranid]

I'm just replying to the people who are flaming MY opinnion and insulting me for MY opinnion. Also with your logic every Warcraft fan absolutely hates Warcraft 3...

 

[TM-Magic]

I'm trying to let him know that his opinion is based off of one perspective, not the collective perspective and as such, is very self-sided, poor remark that doesn't hold any valor since he'll find no one is going to agree with him. His argument has become empty words without use other than getting inflamed responses.
In other words, you get bashful responses because your opinion is one sided and because its one sided, only you and a handful of people can agree on it.

 

[kingbdogz]

I'm just replying to the people who are flaming MY opinnion and insulting me for MY opinnion. Also with your logic every Warcraft fan absolutely hates Warcraft 3...

Infact, a lot of the Warcraft 2 and 1 fans absolutely hated it, the Heroes idea was horrible to them because it was such a huge change to what they all loved about the orginals, also Warcraft 2 wasn't about small armys it was about large armys like Starcraft 1 but War 3 was about small armys so people did not like the change. A few did not mind it, but the majority did and stuck with Wc2. Also we weren't flaming you, we are stating your one sided with your opinion and you should not do that. If you did that in real life you will get a lot of people disliking you. No offense I'm just trying to say that you should respect others opinions too. I'm fine with yours, some people like huge changes in sequals. But the Majority don't so try to word your posts better please or we will get the wrong impression.

 

[Gilles]

Re-creating =/= fixing it. It means making a NEW game.

So far you haven't failed to make me laugh. Your completely wrong, just because your idea of a new game is recreating it with the same story, does not mean it is right.

When did he say his opinion is right? You're not reading what he said.

I'm just replying to the people who are flaming MY opinnion and insulting me for MY opinnion. Also with your logic every Warcraft fan absolutely hates Warcraft 3...

As far as I can tell, there was no flaming or insulting. People have just been stating opinions on both sides.

No offense I'm just trying to say that you should respect others opinions too. I'm fine with yours, some people like huge changes in sequals. But the Majority don't so try to word your posts better please or we will get the wrong impression.

Again, when did he not respect other people's opinions? You're jumping to conclusions.

I agree with tyranid. I'd rather see a new game since SC gameplay is old. Oh well, I only have to wait a couple months for DoW2. Seems it's coming out before SC2... good old delaying blizzard!

 

[kingbdogz]

When did he say his opinion is right? You're not reading what he said.

Infact he did, he kept denying that our opinion was right and demanded that his was right several times, reread it if you don't believe me.

Again, when did he not respect other people's opinions? You're jumping to conclusions.

The way he said things it damn sounded like it. He was saying (not literally it was the way he said it) that only his opinion was right. This is why I said to please reword his posts next time so we do not get the wrong impression.

I agree with tyranid. I'd rather see a new game since SC gameplay is old. Oh well, I only have to wait a couple months for DoW2. Seems it's coming out before SC2... good old delaying blizzard!

Thats all in personal opinion though. I have a great idea, go to several Sc2 forums, fan made or official, and say "Hey Sc2 should be completely different from Sc1". I bet you all my money and belongings they will flame the crap out of you and put you down. No one wants it. The Sc1 fans want to see a sequal, not a different game with a Starcraft skin.

Oh BTW feedback so far from DoW2 beta has been bad. A lot of people don't like the changes made especially that there is no building anymore. I'm gonna try it on 28th (public beta) It may be good dunno yet. All I'm gonna say is that the feedback has been... not so good.

 

[SanKakU]

I'm just replying to the people who are flaming MY opinnion and insulting me for MY opinnion. Also with your logic every Warcraft fan absolutely hates Warcraft 3...

i was just trying to point out that blizzard does what they will with the new game...and it's rather impossible for you to properly call a new game not a new game.

blizzard is making new stuff in the game...follow along with the news...it is a new game. it has a lot of new stuff.

it looks like you want a different game, but i don't think you're going to get it.

here is my theory.

when blizzard works on warcraft games, it is to improve their game making skills. but when blizzard works on starcraft games, it is to make a masterpiece after they have become skilled enough at making games.

starcraft and it's expansion did follow the same overall pattern of warcraft2, as far as what kind of game it was. but it was radically different and new.

true, starcraft 2 is going to have the same three races, but you have to consider that there will be a lot to the single player, it will be dramatically different.

the multiplayer likewise is undergoing some interesting changes. you think making alternate unit models from the same unit being built was in warcraft 3 or starcraft? it wasn't. that's new and totally different. they just asked us if we want them to do that for the dark templar. they figured we'd say yes because we want something new and different, and fun. and we did.

i feel like you think that maybe heroes are new and if starcraft 2 does not have heroes than it's too old. if that's how you feel, that's fine, just stick with wc3. and stay out of the sc2 forum.

P.S. if you thought that saying if it's not broke don't fix it was insulting you or flaming you for your opinion i guess you must feel i'm cursing your mother and sisters with this post. haha...if so then you really need to figure out how to look at text properly

 

[VeljkoM]

I like Starcraft for not having heroes.Warcraft is good game only because of editor and custom maps.

 

[Gilles]

Infact he did, he kept denying that our opinion was right and demanded that his was right several times, reread it if you don't believe me.

I went back and I still don't see any time that he's denied you, or anyone else, their opinion. He has only backed up his own.

The way he said things it damn sounded like it. He was saying (not literally it was the way he said it) that only his opinion was right. This is why I said to please reword his posts next time so we do not get the wrong impression.

To quote you, "So far you haven't failed to make me laugh. Your completely wrong, just because your idea of a new game is recreating it with the same story, does not mean it is right. "

I rest my case.

Thats all in personal opinion though. I have a great idea, go to several Sc2 forums, fan made or official, and say "Hey Sc2 should be completely different from Sc1". I bet you all my money and belongings they will flame the crap out of you and put you down. No one wants it. The Sc1 fans want to see a sequal, not a different game with a Starcraft skin.

I don't see how that has any relevancy. I never said everyone wants a new game, I said I want to see a new game. In fact a while back (in another thread), I admitted that I would do the same thing in Blizzards shoes. That doesn't mean it's what I'd want as a player though.


I'd ask you to please not respond to anything above this. I was simply trying to do my job as a moderator. I'm sorry if I offended you, and if you have any issues with me, use Admin Contact.

Everyone, please continue to be objective, and let's keep any flaming out of this (not accusing anyone, just warning).

Oh BTW feedback so far from DoW2 beta has been bad. A lot of people don't like the changes made especially that there is no building anymore. I'm gonna try it on 28th (public beta) It may be good dunno yet. All I'm gonna say is that the feedback has been... not so good.

I get the impression you're just trying to bash DoW2 since we disagree with you about SC2. I apologize if that's not the case.

I'm actually very happy that they are taking base building out of the game. It's one huge blemish on SC (I'm not going to bother saying "in my opinion" from now on; I think we're all old enough to know that this entire discussion is purely opinion without stating it). I'd rather be controlling my units and fighting the whole time.

And where is this bad feedback? If you mean balance issues, that's to be expected in a Beta. I admit SC is a more balanced game, but that doesn't make it better. Unless you're pro, then maybe it does. The only other thing some people are upset about, is the lack of base building, but as stated, I'm glad to see it gone. I realize it adds more to the game, but more /= better necessarily. Besides, SC2 is about base building and DoW 2 is about pure unit control. Now everyone's satisfied.

 

[kingbdogz]

I went back and I still don't see any time that he's denied you, or anyone else, their opinion. He has only backed up his own.

He didn't say it literally, but he did keep repeating the same opinion over and over and saying things like "NO because don't you that it would be better as a new game?" thats the way he was wording it.

To quote you, "So far you haven't failed to make me laugh. Your completely wrong, just because your idea of a new game is recreating it with the same story, does not mean it is right. "

I rest my case.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I said that before Tyranid posted that he was simply stating his opinion, that is why I said that text after that post, before Tyranid said nothing and the way he said it implied he was forcing his opinion on the rest of us.

I don't see how that has any relevancy. I never said everyone wants a new game, I said I want to see a new game. In fact a while back (in another thread), I admitted that I would do the same thing in Blizzards shoes. That doesn't mean it's what I'd want as a player though.

I understand that fully. Everyone has their own opinion. I'm just saying the majority doesn't want it so it's best not to force it on us (I'm refering to Tyranid)

I'd ask you to please not respond to anything above this. I was simply trying to do my job as a moderator. I'm sorry if I offended you, and if you have any issues with me, use Admin Contact.

Sorry I'm too tempted to reply, I'm simply explaining what I meant by my previous posts. Also, you did not offend me at all. I have no issues with you what so ever. This is all opinion discussion, it should not make one dislike another.

Everyone, please continue to be objective, and let's keep any flaming out of this (not accusing anyone, just warning).

I'll try stay on topic, but I have to post this first.

I get the impression you're just trying to bash DoW2 since we disagree with you about SC2. I apologize if that's not the case.

I'm actually very happy that they are taking base building out of the game. It's one huge blemish on SC (I'm not going to bother saying "in my opinion" from now on; I think we're all old enough to know that this entire discussion is purely opinion without stating it). I'd rather be controlling my units and fighting the whole time.

No, no, no I'm not bashing DoW2 at all. I'm just saying that there has been some bad feedback from some hardcore DoW1 fans. I've never played DoW1 myself, but I've heard great from it and DoW2 looks brilliant too. Sc2 may be better in some ways, but other people like DoW2's style of play, and some are just hardcore DoW fans.

And where is this bad feedback? If you mean balance issues, that's to be expected in a Beta. I admit SC is a more balanced game, but that doesn't make it better. Unless you're pro, then maybe it does. The only other thing some people are upset about, is the lack of base building, but as stated, I'm glad to see it gone. I realize it adds more to the game, but more /= better necessarily. Besides, SC2 is about base building and DoW 2 is about pure unit control. Now everyone's satisfied.

No not balance issues, just bad feedback on the design of the game. I have seen people complain on some issues with the interface and core mechanics and features in general. They still like it, but just really got let down thinking it was going to be like to DoW1. There are also so saying they will not buy it because it's like CoH with a DoW theme. Well I'm playing DoW2 very soon so maybe we could play and have some games on it. I'm willing to try something new until Starcraft 2 comes out, I mean Sc2 is not gonna come out for atleast 6 months.

 

[Gilles]

No not balance issues, just bad feedback on the design of the game. I have seen people complain on some issues with the interface and core mechanics and features in general. They still like it, but just really got let down thinking it was going to be like to DoW1. There are also so saying they will not buy it because it's like CoH with a DoW theme. Well I'm playing DoW2 very soon so maybe we could play and have some games on it. I'm willing to try something new until Starcraft 2 comes out, I mean Sc2 is not gonna come out for atleast 6 months.

I obviously can't say yet since I'm not in the beta, but the controls look fine to me. As well, it was stated right from announcement that this would be quite different from DoW1, not sure why they thought it would be anything else.
Yeah, it's closer to CoH in gameplay then to DoW1, but from what I see, that's just fine. I have never played CoH, but I hear DoW2 improves everything it took from it.

 

[Tyranid]

I am STILL free to express my opinnion even if people do not like it. It's a forum and forums are made for talking about things.

Anyways I've seen mixed feedback for Dawn of War II. One of the major dislikes have been:
1. Smaller Scale
2. Difference from the first.

However, alot of the major things people have also liked are:
1. Requires more thinking, apparently.
2. Different from the first.
3. Races are different.
4. New mechanics.

 

[Gilles]

Quit trolling Tyranid.

 

[VeljkoM]

Smart people know when to stop.Do you know when to stop.
This is getting stupid and this thread should be closed.I don't care who is right or wrong you are all being hard headed.