39 réponses à ce sujet

[sumoaltus]

@errant_knight Thanks for that, honestly. But again this is what I'm talking about with some people. It's as if their core focus is just to find something wrong in anything, such as my little 70 to 30% thing.



It's just a little tough to tip toe around everybodies feelings all the time. Now I know why developers have limited public input into a sequal, because of this. This post is not directed towards your input errant_knight.

[Lord_Saulot]

sumoaltus wrote...

@errant_knight Thanks for that, honestly. But again this is what I'm talking about with some people. It's as if their core focus is just to find something wrong in anything, such as my little 70 to 30% thing.

It's just a little tough to tip toe around everybodies feelings all the time. Now I know why developers have limited public input into a sequal, because of this. This post is not directed towards your input errant_knight.

Its not about tiptoeing around feelings.  It's about getting facts right.

You can't say that most people want the game to change a lot, if you don't actually have facts to support it.  Otherwise you are just making things up.

In any case, a sequel is always about changing enough to make it feel fresh and keeping enough to make it feel the same.  The particular balance of those two factors varies from product to product and audience to audience, and it's natural that people will disagree about where that balance should be struck.

[Khavos]

sumoaltus wrote...
 It's as if their core focus is just to find something wrong in anything, such as my little 70 to 30% thing.

How dare they question numbers you pulled out of your ass in order to make a specious point.  85% of people agree with me that you don't know what you're talking about.  15% are undecided. 

[Rubbish Hero]

If fans close minded, they hop up and down clapping regardless of what they hear. Objective fan think game peice of crap until proven otherwise. That's sort of close to what objectivity is, making it objective.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 18 juillet 2010 - 07:06 .

[b09boy]

This is nonsensical.  First, this is a straw man argument - complainers don't want to keep everything the same.  Second, 11 years and two years is a very, very different period of time to change game styles.  Third, in a sequel people want the game to have the same feel as what came before it.  That's why it's a sequel and not a spin-off or new IP.  They want evolution of what came before, not something starting from the ground up.

[orpheus333]

Actually SC 2 looks like exactly what it is. A 'classic' RTS. Sadly 'classic' RTSs become, more, crap right around the same time Relic and Gas powered games started making RTSs and improving the tired base building, hotkey, rock-paper-scissors bull****.

[Rubbish Hero]

andyr1986 wrote...

Actually SC 2 looks like exactly what it is. A 'classic' RTS. Sadly 'classic' RTSs become, more, crap right around the same time Relic and Gas powered games started making RTSs and improving the tired base building, hotkey, rock-paper-scissors bull****.

Dawn Of War II suck compared to Dawn Of War.

[orpheus333]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

andyr1986 wrote...

Actually SC 2 looks like exactly what it is. A 'classic' RTS. Sadly 'classic' RTSs become, more, crap right around the same time Relic and Gas powered games started making RTSs and improving the tired base building, hotkey, rock-paper-scissors bull****.

Dawn Of War II suck compared to Dawn Of War.

Company Of Heroes beats them both. What's your point?

[errant_knight]

b09boy wrote...

This is nonsensical.  First, this is a straw man argument - complainers don't want to keep everything the same.  Second, 11 years and two years is a very, very different period of time to change game styles.  Third, in a sequel people want the game to have the same feel as what came before it.  That's why it's a sequel and not a spin-off or new IP.  They want evolution of what came before, not something starting from the ground up.

Well said.

[Rubbish Hero]

andyr1986 wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

andyr1986 wrote...

Actually SC 2 looks like exactly what it is. A 'classic' RTS. Sadly 'classic' RTSs become, more, crap right around the same time Relic and Gas powered games started making RTSs and improving the tired base building, hotkey, rock-paper-scissors bull****.

Dawn Of War II suck compared to Dawn Of War.

Company Of Heroes beats them both. What's your point?

Not multiplayer, Dawn of War still far better. Starcraft about multiplayer.
Better than all three. Execution is what matters.

[sumoaltus]

Khavos wrote...

How dare they question numbers you pulled out of your ass in order to make a specious point.  85% of people agree with me that you don't know what you're talking about.  15% are undecided. 

It wasn't really about the numbers, more of a minority/majority point. But it's being mistaken as contrued numbers. Here we go, any percentage that I throw out there - unless specified - are just my view on minority/majority. Sorry dudes and ladies.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all about making the old better. But I am also open to new ideas such as voiced playable characters, a new protagonist, new story, new enemies. Sorry for causing such a ruckus, I didn't really intend to. 

[orpheus333]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

andyr1986 wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

andyr1986 wrote...

Actually SC 2 looks like exactly what it is. A 'classic' RTS. Sadly 'classic' RTSs become, more, crap right around the same time Relic and Gas powered games started making RTSs and improving the tired base building, hotkey, rock-paper-scissors bull****.

Dawn Of War II suck compared to Dawn Of War.

Company Of Heroes beats them both. What's your point?

Not multiplayer, Dawn of War still far better. Starcraft about multiplayer.
Better than all three. Execution is what matters.

Company of Heroes is multiplayer. DoW isn't better. Starcraft is about RTS...both elements need to be worthwhile. Sadly neither singleplayer or multiplayer brings anything to the genre that isn't there already. No iteration and no improvement = weak game. 

But we're just going to disagree about it. So this is pretty pointless

Modifié par andyr1986, 18 juillet 2010 - 07:27 .

[sumoaltus]

haha Andy, well said my friend

[Rubbish Hero]

andyr1986 wrote...Company of Heroes is multiplayer. DoW isn't betterp

Yes it is. Company Of Hereoes good SP, not so good MP.
Starcraft = King Of MP

[Altima Darkspells]

sumoaltus wrote...

It seems to me that a majority of the poeple who are complaining about a title without a teaser traler fit into one single psycholgical category. I call it the Star Craft complex. Obviously this name is derived from the very unappealing, artless, and redundant real time genre title known as Star Craft.

This complex has reproduced wealth of boring games such as War Craft, Halo Wars, and countless others that i don't feel are worth even typing out. 
Originally Star Craft came out about 11 years ago. Take a look at the first title and compare it to Star Craft 2. I took them 11 years to make that!? Come on! It's exactly the same thing, is that what the fans want, the same exact game?

I honestly wouldn't want to spend a hard earned $60 on Dragon Age: Origins 2 (Carbon Copy).

Starcraft 2 was put in development shortly after WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne was released.  Since it came out in '03, it's safe to say that it took Blizzard 'only' seven years to make Starcraft 2.  This will happen when you have over four thousand employees and yet only fifty people working on the game.  Thank you, WoW.

Starcraft's main draw is that is has completely balanced multiplayer.  Blizzard worked for *years* to make sure that no race had a significant advantage over the others.  What makes this revolutionary is that each race plays completely different than the other.

Dragon Age Origins is a single player game.  DA2 is being released eighteen months after DAO.  Dragon Age Origins was originally billed as a very traditional game.

If Blizzard had suddenly decided that Starcraft 2, in the interest of balance, should suddenly switch its style so that every race played exactly the same with the same exact units in the same exact roles with perhaps one or two 'special' exceptions, the fans would be understandably outrage.  Sure, the game would be balanced, it would still revolve around multiplayer, but all the things that made Starcraft *special* in the first place would simply be gone.

In the end, Blizzard opted to take what they already had and build on it.  They added--not changed, not taken away--new mechanics and new features.  They (attempted to) improve every facet of the game.

From what it looks like, Dragon Age 2 is not taking that route.  They are merely implementing change for change's sake.

That's what it looks like, anyway.  I reserve the right to change my mind as more information gets released.

On a side note, even if DA2 turns out to be ME with swords, BioWare will still not have crapped on its fans the way Blizzard has.