I noticed Red Alert 2 out in the stores the other day - you might notice that I start drooling sarcasm when talking about Blizzard/Westwood games, because I have this crazy idea that they're all exactly the same as the previous one. Shrug, I guess its just me.

Anyway, there's a pretty decent review of this game up now by JeffK. 3DGameForce also have a review that some people might find a bit more practical, if not as entertaining.

I agree, after playing Red Alert 2 for a the first few missions and a bit multiplayer I was thinking that it would get really bad reviews because I had the worst feeling of 'been there done that' when playing it and the graphics seemed more cartoonish and worse than high res C&C.

They will make 50 billion off it anyway so Red Alert 3 will probably be in the making now.

This is just my opinion.

Westwood haven't had a new idea in a decade.

that said, the masters at Blizzard (despite the recent Diablo2 debacle that we won't mention :) are pretty innovative, if you've played WarCraft 2 and StarCraft you could go as far as to say that the basic premise is the same but the games are as different as they can be within the same genre.

WarCraft3 should (fingers crossed) own.

Quick self-pimpage:

www.aus-1.au.nu
AUS-1

you are all missing the point.

that being that tanya is a hottie.

Kari Wuhrer rocks joo.

Hehe from Shor (AUS-1 SC guru)'s Column:

I mean imagine if he (IGN Reviewer Guy)wrote a blatant review which mocked RA2, millions of newbie games would flame the s*** out of him, not to mention more than half the spazs who buy RA2 are those immature idiots fascinated by Tanya's jigglies...

And errmm WTF is with that chick's eyebrows? Left one is like 4x the size of the right (which isn't particularly streamlined itself)?

"half the spazs who buy RA2 are those immature idiots fascinated by Tanya's jigglies..."

and just what's wrong with jigglies punk?

the best thing about red alert 2:- the mpeg preview of Emporeror:The Battle for Dune on the cd.. least you can see where they've been putting their effort, that game looks pretty sweet..

I think its obvious that the Westwood / Blizzard guys are heavily capitalising on the success of their past few games. I was a big fan of Dune 2, Warcraft 2, and the original Command and Conquer, but I've been continually dissapoint me - not because they are bad games, but because they don't really explore anything new.

I actually think Tf2 might prove to be one of the best RTS games for a while - I remember talking to Robin Walker about it briefly at E3 last year and thinking how awesome it sounded - finally, some integration between different game genres, all in the same game.

That's the future of gaming...

maybe it sounds awesome but will it actually be fun

yeah so what they're all the same, who gives a rats .. if you like it play it.

For once i found the fact that red alert 2 was under hyped when it came out i was presently surprised (the sides are pretty well balanced and multiplayer is quite fun) the singleplayer campaign was great, the sotryline was great and if you think its boring go eat a phat shad McDick.

I just on't understand how you can come out and say that Trog. As I mentioned, Diablo2 was a huge disappointment, and merely highlights that Blizzard should make RTS games.

StarCraft was a monumental development cycle that, aside from having a -vaguelly- similar interface, was absolutely nothing like the WarCraft series. Indeed, a third of the way through the development, they cancelled the original project and restarted from scratch due to tester's complaints that it was merely "Orcs in Space".

Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time playing both StarCraft and War2 will understand how much of a breakthrough SC was over war2 and previous (and basically any subsequent) RTS games. There's a reason why Brood War is played in the KBK, WCGC and almost every other pro-gaming circuit in the world.

The biggest single thing that SC brought to the genre was 3 distinctly unique races, in terms of all individual units strengths and weaknesses. Before StarCraft what we basically had was 2 sides with different pixels representing the opposing units - or at best, like in TA, two mildly different forces with similar abilities and hordes of units anyway.

No other RTS has managed to pull this off and keep the game balanced. Its why last night there were over 200 Aussies playing Brood War on AUS-1 2.5 years after the game shipped, and why they'll still be playing until war3 ships or another developer manages to catch up with this.

It's why after playing Brood War, Tiberian Sun was lacklustre and lost replayability. Its why RTS fans will find themselves yawning a little after playing RA2 for a time. Its why Dark Reign and the sequel bite.

Its been nearly 3 years, and we're still seeing RTS' going gold today with 2 races/sides and a minimum of differentiation between them, while Blizzard prepares to release its next RTS - that will feature 5 unique forces.

SC has faults, and they are sometimes glaring, but 2.5 years after it went gold, its still the best RTS on the market, as demonstrated by its huge persistent fan base, and shockingly successful run in PCData's top 10 (only started dropping out this year).

As I said, I don't think its a bad game - having 3 races wasn't a big deal to me. Dark Reign had 3 different teams as well (3rd one didn't ship with the game but was released later).

To be honest, I've never even played StarCraft, but I've watched it played quite a lot; a lot of the guys I hang out with think its a pretty awesome game, so I've had the opportunity to watch them play a lot. I think one of the reasons it is still played so much is because its a good, fun game that has built on the Blizzard RTS legacy game style.

The last RTS I played seriously was Age of Empires 2, which I found to be infinitely more fun than just about any other RTS I've played - it has stacks of different teams, different units, etc, all of which are very well balanced and supported by an excellent graphics engine.

I think regardless of what happens with other games, its going to take a seriously awesome game from someone before Blizzard loses their monopoly on the multiplayer RTS games.

As I said before, I think the fixed-camera-2d-perspective RTS's lifespan is rapidly running out. Myth explored 3d RTS, BattleZone2/Dark Reign 2 made an awesome engine to run a game around. Starship Troopers looks pretty decent as well.

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean its good, only that it has mass market appeal. I tend to consider myself to have slightly more specific tastes in games than a lot of other people; I get bored pretty easily. I've been playing Quake games since the day qtest was released, and haven't really found anything that has kept my interest long enough since then - except a few games - Dark Reign (heh), Age of Empires 2, Half-Life. I'm pretty heavily biased towards first person games though, because I like being immersed as much as possible and I feel that the FPS game does a better job of that.

Anyway, I'm not really critisizing StarCraft, so I think you were a little confused by what I was saying; I don't like Blizzard/Westwoods strategy of really just cashing in on a brand name and not really doing anything new. I'm sure its an excellent idea for them financially, because they have a very impressive userbase that will undoubtably buy any of their games from now on (sorta like me with id games) - in fact, they'd probably be stupid if they STOPPED doing it.

But while they are doing that, it would be good to see them trying to branch out with some new innovations and trying to establish some new brand names.

..."imho"...

hogfather all i can say is what ever

the units were pretty much for the most part mirror images of each other and starcraft did nothing that was amazing as far as i can tell (and i have played a far bit of starcraft) there was a silght graphical improvement and the game play remained the same with a couple of units that were a little bit different.

id have to say that the best ever game for balancing would be c&c the oridginal because the game was balanced (maybe a little biased towards nod) but the units were all different where nod was geared up for the sneak attacks and general high tech shiz gdi was brought up for brawn and general strength in units.


the unit werent exactly the same as each other with a different model they were geneuinly different warcraft 2 cant claim this and while starcraft would like to claim this i feel that it really doesnt pull it off
dont get me wrong starcraft was alright and i had fun playing it but to call revolutionary i would have to say is ignorant

nah c&c2 had the best balance

(/me sets his baits)

#1 - trog hasn't played SC to any extent so I'm going to disregard his commentary from now on ;)

#2 - As for Pete, man, sorry but you obviously don't have any idea mate :( This statement:

the unit werent exactly the same as each other with a different model they were geneuinly different warcraft 2 cant claim this and while starcraft would like to claim this i feel that it really doesnt pull it off

Is simply, utterly, and plainly, ridiculous. Totally absurd. I'm runnign out of derogatives here, I would LOVE for you to name me TWO units in StarCraft that are remotely similar, with the possible exception of the drone units, and even they have a number of differences.

Please, just do that. Tell me TWO units - or better yet, there being three races, make it three - that are essentially the same, and why.

Before you open your mouth, though, remember I have played StarCraft pretty solid for nearly 3 years, and know the game inside out. If you respond, I will hit you with unit statistics in terms of hit points, control cost, minweral and gas cost, regen, range, upgrades, mana usage (spells), position in the tech tree, uses in a micromanagement and macromanagement situation, and damage type (concussive, explosive and normal). If you don't understand how these elements interact, kindly STFU.

I don't make ignorant commentary on FPS games because I don't play them - Thanks.

I haven't played it because I've seen it played, and it bores me. I'd rather play War2.

Just because you don't play something doesn't mean you're precluded from making comments. I just watched a round of boxing, for the first time ever, and feel I could write a few pages on that without having any prior knowledge of the sport at all. Actually, if you were to make any commentary on something you don't play, then it would be considered ignorant, but anyway...

I don't really know what Pete is talking about, again because I haven't played SC... but I know what I like and what appeals to me, and SC ain't it.

I do, in fact, like RTS games quite a lot. stagrrr and I used to get down and funky playing AoE2 til the whee hours of the morning; I've played s***loads of DR, War2, etc, etc. I'd rather play RTS games that are significantly different that their peers rather than the same game in a few different colours and flavours.

Anyway, the whole reason I entered into this thread with my witty comments was because when Diablo 2 came out, everyone was playing it, and I was saying things like "its exactly the same as the original" and "you'll be bored of it in a few weeks", and I was exactly right. As you've pointed out, I'm not qualified to talk about how good a game StarCraft is or isn't - and I'm not. I'm just reiterating something I've said many times in the past about Blizzard games :)

And you'll note I casually excluded DiabloII from my analysis of Bliz games :P

DiabloII has been universally declared a bomb by even the most hardcore of Blizzard junkie.

I would, however, like to invite you to come on AUS-1 for a few games of StarCraft one day, I'll find some people to take it easy on you and at the very least you'll see what I'm on about.

Oh, and have a look into WarCraft3, its very promising so far as stretching the mold on the RTS genre goes. Blizzard have stated in a DiabloII post-moretem (how apppropriate) that they are very unlikely to make any more games in 2D.

hogfather

maybe you should read a little futher eh

i said that about warcraft 2 and starcraft improved on it a bit but i dont know the exact unit stats but here is and example wraths and protoss scouts and mutilisks
now i know that you gonna hit me with the stats but listen to this i find that good balance isnt a matter of taking the units and making mirror images of them or in starcrafts case make one shoot harder and have less hit points which youll find if you look at your stats little man is the case

balancing is taking to completly different forms of gameplay and make it so they have an equal chance of winning which is why c&c was so good

nod was sneaky and gdi had brawn and both tactics worked when executed skillfully

once again i never said that starcraft was s*** and unbalanced hell i cant wait for warcraft 3 its just that blizzard do very simple balancing

westwoods attempts are more complex and it show because that havent really made a game as good as c&c since

Warcraft 3, with its pseudo 3d? Fixed camera != 3d, as far as I'm concerned. I can see why they've done that - its really hard to make a 3dRTS and provide a really easy interface to managing the whole thing.

Seriously PornoPete you know nothing about Starcraft you just owned yourself ^_^

If thats the way you think its so damn obvious that you have never been into the competitive air of Starcraft so my advice to you is to stay out of something you know nothing about, before you get people who do know what they are talking about coming on here and making u look like an ignorant fool :) (I had to refrain myself from doing so I almost fell of the chair laughing reading this thread).

No offence ^_^

trog - you will have to play Starcraft for it to appeal to you.
Watching it won't do anything it can be quite boring to watch to someone who has never played it. Once you sit down and realise the amount of strategy involved that is the Strat and Counter-Strat style of gameplay that makes up the game, you will realise how addictive it is.

listen you starcraft tryhards, the units are too _similar_ with each 3 race, i love the unit diversity that westwood have provided us with in c&c and ra2 starcraft doesnt come close to this.

sure no 2 units are exactly the same, but they are simlilar and have a direct counter balance on another side.

i got bored of starcraft after playing the second singleplayer mission, all westwood games have kept me to the end in all campaigns (even dune2000) so eat a phat shad McDick.

I actually really enjoy watching other people play games - watching their reactions, watching their styles, etc. I really like watching people get into some good games of CS, because it just looks so awesome. Watching the skill involved in the players, and the great graphics and stuff...

But nothing about watching a game of SC has ever appealed to me.. I've just watched it, people do the same RTS things - not the things like hoarding resources, building an army, launching an attack type things, but just the whole ... "its the exact same sort of thing"-ness about it. AoE2 has a lot of the same elements, but appeals to me heaps more because a) the different teams b) the realism (ie, its set on earth with real races-type-things) c) the great graphics, etc.

Obviosuly, I'm not the same as like, 12198439189 people out there that do play SC; as I said, my tastes are different (more refined :P)

different teams, realism (set on earth), great graphics .. wow sounds like red alert2 :) (okay maybe the graphics arent as crash, but neither is aoe2 really)

Different strokes for different folks, or something...

Now, whos up for some Multiplayer Daikatana? :P

hey tone thanks man but ill think youll find that what i have to say is true

i havent play sc competivly but that doesnt mean i havent played enough to form my own opinions on the game

as acid said and you will get no end of arugement from this westwoods units are truly differnt they dont have a direct and fairly obvious counter on the other team and the RA2 has room for much more sneaky attacks then starcraft

you can get all the sc goons in the world to come and say other wise but ill bet you find that once you start compairng the stats ie cost (both mineral gas and food/psi/control) toughness strength and abilities the units arent all that individual

anyhow this is my 2c and the reason i like RA2 more then SC

Wow, there are actually fellow Westwood haters out there! The original C&C was the only one I ever liked. Since then they have just released the same carbon copies over and over. Myself, I can hardly be bothered to play any RTS anymore. They seem great at first, but after awhile...
I did like Dark Omen and Total Annihilation though. As for westwood, it does seem (in my experience) that their games are only loved by newbies. The ones who foam at the mouth if you mention the word 'tesla'.
Finally, heres a funny story about some guys I know. They bought Red Alert BEFORE their parents bought a computer. When asked why, they responded: 'Because a guy at school said it was the best game ever made'
Sigh.

yeah well its been said before but ill say it again

c&c2 was hyped for 3 years straight i mean what kind of idiot does that they're never gonna be able to live up to the expectations they set

RA2 on the other hand i didnt hear much about until it was released and its been a bit of fun

Paraphrase Pete:

"Nod are sneaky GDI have brawn but it balances"

The Zerg are numerous, cheap, and swarm in endless waves. The Protoss are tougher, more expensive, and have som eof the best micro-management tools in the game (namely psi-storm / disruption web). Terrans (depending on your point of view) either suck (heh, inside joke) or completely own in agiven situation and when a specific, prepared strat is laid.

Trog, I hope that some of the hardercore SC players come to the QGL finals, I really do. Not that I know who you have been watching, but a quality 1v1 or 2v2 game of BW is sick to watch, I hardly play that much anymore I just com eon and perv games :)

The Scout/Mutalisk/Wraith. OMG. I can't believe I'm actually responding to this, but, here we go. As you have concentrated on vagiaries rather than specifics, I will do the same.

The Scout
Is a general-purpose Air Superiority fighter. Its primary role is in partollig island expansions, on in quick hit-and-run strikes against capital ships shuch as the Battlecruiser, rogue Protoss Carriers, and for taking down threats such as the Zerg Guardian (which is susceptible to air-air strikes without escort).

In recent years, the Scout has been partially superceded by the Corsair, a lighter, faster firing air-air only fighter that will quickly bring down wraiths and Mutalisks whilst the Scout will generally face a battle of attrition if the odds are even slightly stacked against it in such a match-up.

The Scout is equipped with both air-air and air-ground weaponry, makingit a reasonably versatile aircraft, however it is best to not engage large amounts of ground-air resistance with Scouts alone. The air-ground cannon, however, is often very useful for taking out token missile batteries and the like when stomping on lightly-defended outposts, or descending on unlucky melee opponents.

The Protoss commander may choose to upgrade the engines of his Scouts, making them a lethal intercept fighter, capable of both hit and run strikes on capital ships (returning to a shield battery for an instant repair) as well as daring raids on enemy resource nodes.

The Mutalisk
One of the most devestating units when StarCraft was first released, the Mutalisk was for almost a year the scourge of the sky.

The Mutalisk uses a unique attack method, a projectile that bounces from its target to a maximum of two others within a specific range. Totally at home in bringing death to both air and ground targets, iots weaknesses are few but notable.

The Mutalisk is a lighter beast than the heavier, more expensive Scout, and must have a genuine tactical or numerical advantage to bring a wing of the Protoss fliers down. The terran Valkyrie and Corsair are completely lethal to Mutalisks, developed in direct response to their marauding of the skies.

The Mutalisk itself posses the Zerg-specific ability to permanently mutate into one of two Zerg fliers: the Guardian and the Devourer. The Guardian is a long-range air-ground specialist that while susceptible without air-air escort, can wreak serious havoc against fixed installations and ground troops.

The Devourer posseses the innate ability to infect its enemies with a lethal spore that has a threefold effect: lowering attack rate, reducing armour, and dealing direct damage to the target. The spores will affect a wide area of air targets, making them the ideal counter to revenging Corsairs.

In itself, the Mutalisk has few foes to fear, but those it must fear are dangerous indeed. Aside from the specialist anti-air Valkyrie and Corsair, the Mutalisk must be wary of the Terran Science Vessel's Irradiate, striking an individual Mutalisk and dooming it to death - as well as severely damaging the other nearby mutalisks unless the Zerg Cerebrate can quickly react and move the doomed flier from the horde. A Mutalisk pack must also be wary of psionic storm, as a single well-placed blast can render an entire wing to nothing unless they can move aside in time.

The Wraith
The Wraith has been bemoaned for a long time as the weakest air unit in the game. 1:1, practically any unit in the game can bring down a wraith, and certainly any ground-air, or air-air combat unit!

The clever Terran commander, however, can utilise the Wraith's best asset to surprising advantage - its cloak. A powered-up Wraith may attack while cloaked and wreak havoc against its foes, who are unable to respond.

When facing a Terran Wraith commander, your only hope is to bring your own mobile detection. However, Clumsy Overlords are easy meat for Wraiths if left undefended, or if only a couple are brought along. The similarly-cloaked Protoss Observer can be quickly and easily brought down with a sidden comsat, or the assistance of a Science Vessel, to reveal its presence, leaving the invading units without protection from the invisible air raiders.

Conclusion
Hopefully, I have (without resorting to facts and figures as requested) ashed some small light on the ever-evolving StarCraft air war, and given you a tiny insight into the depth and level of complexity of the game.

This constant barrage tactic and counter-tactic happens every time seasoned SC players face off. Its not simply a case of "this unit beats that one", its more a case of "if I do this with this unit I can take down that expansion probably unless he has that unit in which case I had better get ready with this spell" - and this happens in every single game, across every unit and racial match-up.

Its why hundreds of people are still playing Brood War in Australia today. Its why last night, when Shor (AUS-1 Admin) decided to run a couple of tournaments last night, we ended up with three 2v2 tourneys and two parrallel 1v1 ones, and still couldn't satisfy the demand.

Oh yeh, and with regards to the fixed-angle camera, its just necessary in a 3d rts.

Myth tried a swinging camera and failed. You spent so much time trying to get the right angle that it overpowered everything else, making fast-paced multiplayer a nightmare. In Real Time Strategy you just don't have time to play with cameras and such, you're too busy managing several units in a battle and gathering resources, producing more units.

A fixed camera angle means you can concentrate on making what will be seen clear, easily targettable, as well as adding some of the legacy elements of their existing RTS franchises (important, see below).

But building on legacy styles and interfaces is the way game development works. It means you can sneak some changes (such as going to 3D, implementing a complex multi-racial unit mix, shifting from turn-based to RTS) without offending your customerbase to the point of alienating them.

Its a necessary evil, look at how much Quake2 was attacked for its small changes in physics and weapon dynamics to the original, it essentially divided the Quake community for years, and how much the CS1.0 revision is being hammered. People don't like radical change, in fact, I know many who do -not- want war3 to be in 3d and want a return to the original SC engine!

When WarCraft3 was announced, it was going to be a RTS with heavy RPG overtones and elements. This was attacked by the players and eventually its turned into a more tradiitonal RTS with some lingering RPG elements. Similarly but exactly opposite, when SC was being developed it was challenged as not being "different enough" - too much of the same, "Orcs in Space" so the game was revised and changed again.

You're dealing with a franchise and a playerbase who has been playing the same series and style of games - and likes it that way. They want their new game to be what they played before but a little different, with some more cool stuff. Change and innovation will be gradual in order to be successful (ie Blizzard with some of their franchises) or too slow (you know who I'm talking about ;)

Sorry trog, you need some tasty smackdownage. Whilst I agree in principle to your statement "that you don't have to experience something directly to pass comment on it" you must concede that if you have no direct experience, you should not pass comments that indicate you do. Which in my opinion you did.

Obviously I'm referring to your assertation that Blizzard tend not to innovate, but stick with a proven formula:

"...when talking about Blizzard/Westwood games, because I have this crazy idea that they're all exactly the same as the previous one."

How many blizzard games have you played? So far, you've indicated you haven't played Diablo, Diablo 2 or starcraft. You've mentioned that you've played Warcraft 2. That only really leaves Warcraft 1. So, from personal experience, you could only possibly be drawing on the transition from War1->War2. It's a bit of a stretch to take that and extrapolate to "All blizzard games are the same as the previous one", even for your trademark prejudice.

Obvioulsy you are taking the liberty of including these other games, the ones you haven't played, in your analysis. In a word, don't.

Now, as for Starcraft itself, I completely agree with hogfather. Starcraft is about as different from Warcraft 2 as it can be and still be in the same genre. You could as well claim Quake2 was the same as Doom. In some respects the id games are more similar, in others less. What does that prove? That you don't mind if games are the same if they are FPS but you do if they are RTSs? What is the difference between Q3A and Quake? You could probably give me a fair bit of info, mostly technological I would guess, but if I asked a similar question to an experienced starcraft/war2 player I would bet s/he could give me more.

Now Age Of Empires 2 was a very good example of what Hogfather cites as a weakness in most other RTS games. All the armies are essentially EXACTLY the same, with a different special unit. Some have better towers some have better this/that etc.. minor differences. The actual units are the same.

The level of INNOVATION seen in starcraft, by having three completely different races, each with completely different units throughout the entire tech tree is one of the greatest gaming accomplishments in computer game history. The depth of strategy and replayability this introduces is borne witness by the phenomenal amounts of players playing at any given time on battle.net, FSGS servers, and local games around the world at any hour of the day.

If you ask stagrrr which game is better, I have no doubt that he would say starcraft straight away (unless you tell him that I'm hoping he does). The reason you guys probably played AOE2 is because by that stage stag,rukh,rich and I had played SC do death so much.

What I think you need to do, is accept that you don't really know anything about starcraft, and retract your statement about Blizzard, whom I happen to believe are one of the more innovative and exciting games companies around. Perhaps if you still wish to express your opinion, feel free to use the following template, which I suspect is closer to what you are actually trying to say:

"I noticed Red Alert 2 out in the stores the other day - you might notice that I start drooling sarcasm when talking about Blizzard/Westwood games, because I have this crazy bias that they're all exactly the same as the previous one, even though I haven't played it, or the previous one. Furthermore, the only game company I like is id, and even then I only like their games if played on an intel processor. I will overlook the fact that all of id's innovation has been technological with an almost zero change in gameplay since doom (wolf if you just count single player). Shrug, I guess its just me, because I'm a biased, redneck, bandanna wearing, nazi."

I've already said - in fact, repeatedly, so that only the most dimwitted individual could have missed it - that I know nothing about Starcraft. So I'm not interested in your opionions on my opinions, because I don't even care about mine wrt Starcraft, because I couldn't care less about the game from a personal, game playing perspective.

Haha, innovative and exciting? Whatever - try marketing to the masses with minimal changes so the gumbies don't forget how to play, and don't have to learn anything new.

There are minimal differences between Quake and Quake 3, but at least id never tried to pretend they were different games by painting them a different colour and reworking some elements.

And again, I reiterate that my original post was based on Diablo 2 and its lameness; though I stand by my preview opinions on Warcraft 3 and the fact that it seems to represent the whole Blizzard ethos - making some half-assed improvements that don't really change anything that much.

It seems incongruous that you are willing to denigrate Blizzard as a whole, yet not include its biggest and arguably best game. Scrap that, it's downright ludicrous, malicious and irresopnisble.

If what you meant when you said:

"...you might notice that I start drooling sarcasm when talking about Blizzard/Westwood games, because I have this crazy idea that they're all exactly the same as the previous one", was:

"...you might notice that I start drooling sarcasm when talking about Blizzard's sequels to Diablo/Westwood games, because I have this crazy idea that they're all exactly the same as the previous one"

then why not just say it?

In fact, the context of your original post was RTS games. How then was the reader supposed to realize that when you slurred Blizzard games in general you were actually referring to Diablo 2 alone? Perhaps you should re-read your initial post and decide if what you said is entirely fair, given your self-professed ignorance with Blizzard's most successful/popular game.

And this:

"Haha, innovative and exciting? Whatever - try marketing to the masses with minimal changes so the gumbies don't forget how to play, and don't have to learn anything new.
There are minimal differences between Quake and Quake 3, but at least id never tried to pretend they were different games by painting them a different colour and reworking some elements."

Obviously you threw the second paragraph on there as a caveat when you realised that it applied as equally to other companies (eg id software) as it might to Blizzard. Tell me trog, who exactly should I be marketting to, if not the masses? And minimal changes? Tell me how Q2->Q3A displays more changes than even Diablo->Diablo2 let alone any other Blizzard progression.

The second paragraph just doesn't mean anything at all does it? Can you for just one second read that objectively and honestly tell me that it does? You imply id didn't "pretend" to be releasing a new game with q2,q3 etc. Umm hello.. your implication is that Blizzard attempted to hoodwink everyone into thinking that Diablo 2, would in fact be nothing at all like Diablo. Come on. You are one of the biggest id fanboys around, and you know it. Blizzard have shown that they are actively interested in their fans. The have maintained a free game serving network for over 4 years, release game balance patches when it becomes apparent they are needed, have an excellent web site with an active company presence. The list goes on. I'm sorry if you felt that Diablo 2 would be nothing at all like Diablo and feel that Blizzard tricked you into thinking that it would be. All I can suggest if this is the case, is that you kill yourself. Now.

The whole Blizzard ethos. I think the only ethos you have managed to highlight in your posts is that of your own: "It's not id so it sucks"

I think it's unfair to say that FPS players wouldn't know how to play games Like Diablow2.

There's a whole s***load of CS players out there who have mastered the art of not moving much and clicking occasionally - and how scary is the fact that CS backwards is SC?

I think there's something in that for all of us.

Now excuse me my 400 hitpoint Mutalitie Zergocon is battling my Wizzlescrew.

I knew Diablo 2 would be exactly like Diablo. I'm not really interested in entering childish debates in which you just take BLIZZARD what I say and pick it apart in every possible way, because I obviously don't have the sort of spare time at work as you do.

You're bringing in Quake games as a pointless parallel when it has no relevance in what I'm talking about; even when I say that there's no difference between the majority of Quake games, you gloss over that and pretend that I'm blowing over id for some bizarre reason, which I'm NEED quite obviously not. I can say with no guilt that I'm an id fanboy. I like their games, I like their motivation. They've done more for the gaming industry, imo, than most other companies put together. But anyway, the more I talk about id, the more you'll find to pull apart to try and distract people from my central statement, which I'm not going to repeat, because obviously you're the only one that doesn't get it.

I've already said its a good idea for them to market for the masses; if you could try and keep some of SOME what I've already said in mind before just mindlessly drivelling on over my last few words and extrapoliting negative stuff from it (as appears to be your only refuge in this discussion), it would be great, mmmkay?

I'm just not in the masses, so their standard recipe of making games based on their previous ones doesn't appeal to me in this genre. I can imagine you're going to blather on mindlessly NEW about my devotion to id and my single-minded obsession with the Quake series, but I've long professed my taste for games of the first person genre over other genres, because they're more immersive and more immediately interesting (at least to me).

As I've said, I think the future of RTS games that keep the same basis for their gameplay is dwindling - but if anyone can pull it off, its Blizzard. And good on them for coming up with a formula that sells. Deer Hunter sold well too. I, personally, me, trog, have had IDEAS enough of those sort of RTS games, and need some more variety - having 3 unique teams, or having 5 resource types instead of 2 or whatever, or strapping on a 3d engine onto what is still basically a 2d game doesn't really stun me into impressed-ness.

I quit.

I can't explain to someone who hasn't faced a Terran tank push at 9 oclock on LT as Zerg and busted out with a late tech jump to Spire-Hive-GreaterSpire-Guardians or alternatively (and much more fun) Hive-DefilerMoud-Defilers-Swarm&MassLings how much innovation wa spacked into StarCraft.

The game looks like every single other 2D RTS in the world. The interface is similar to every other RTS in the world. This is true.

But that's where the similarities end, and the game comes into its own. Until you've played 50 or more multiplayer games games (and I do mean that, prolly better to make it a hundred, say 80 hours gametime minimum) and not on newbie maps like Hunters and BGH, you just won't comprehend.

I've demonstrated the tip of the iceberg as far as it goes with regards to the depth of strategy and innovation in my oversimplified Wraith vs. Scout vs. Mutalisk breakdown, amplify that by 48 individual unique specilised units, apply the appropriate permutations in terms of situations early-mid-late game, environmental factors such as higher ground, choke points, cover from trees for crying out loud, and talk to me about a lack of innovation.

As a final note, to steal your own analogy, no amount of watching some guy get belted around the ring can give you the insight into what it takes to spit your teeth out and get the hell back up. All you'll get - as you've seen - is a superficial observation of events, lacking any real knowledge of what's going on.

I've enjoyed holidays in AOE, AOK, DR, DR2, C&C2, RA, RA2, and a huge plethora of other RTSes. I'm an RTS junky starting with SC two and a half years ago. Yet I still log onto AUS-1 and play / observe constantly.

Nice thread tho =)

For someone not really interested in entering a debate, you seem remarkably uhhh interested. Ok, I'll try and keep this concise, for you seem to have trouble with any points that need more than 2 paragraphs to argue.

* You criticize Blizzard, saying all their games are merely minor improvements on their previous game.
* You admit you haven't even played their biggest game, but still feel qualified to make the above call.
* In your hypocrisy, you admit that id employs the exact same game design model which you accused Blizzard of.
* You like id and idgames, but not Blizzard nor Blizzard games.
* You opine that id has done more for the gaming industry than most other companies put together. You don't expand on what you mean by this however. There can be no denying that id has had a massive impact on gaming, but it is largely limited to the FPS genre. In my opinion, Blizzard has likewise had a massive impact on the gaming industry, bringing in massive amounts of new gamers, largely limited to the RTS genre and Online Adventure/Actionesque style of Diablo.

At least in your second last paragraph you admit that your whole viewpoint is nothing more than genre bias, in favour of FPS. Of course, I expected nothing less from you.

Haha, I don't think I ever said their games were minor improvements, I just said they were a little bit different. Improvements is far too generous.

I dont think id and blizzard use the same model; id make a new engine and wrap the same game around it (basically) and blizzard take the same engine and wrap a slightly different game around it. Haha.

Inevitably, the conversation has gone back to id. Anyway. Referring back to my original comment, re Westwood/Blizzard... yawn. I think there's only so far you can go with 2d top down strategy games (and, as is the point of my post, I think we've reached it and its being stretched - not expanded gracefully), but I think there's still a lot for the fps genre to evolve.

To summarise, again - I'm not commenting directly on whether or not StarCraft is, or isn't, a good game. In fact, judging by its sheer popularity, I'd say it is, in all probablity, a good game, because it keeps people happy. I was commenting on the brief but frequent similarities between the games made by blizzard and westwood based on the fact that they are all vaguely similar, and how they don't really make any significant advances between as they progress, either technological or through gameplay.

Whats that PornoPete? You said something about the original C&C having strategy? Sorry I missed it I was too busy tank rushing the crap out of those pesky NOD to whom the GDI are WAY overbalanced on.

C&C was the second ever strategy game I played and I enjoyed it, enjoyed it cause I was ignorant and young, 12 yo. The best part I could see to C&C then was making things go boom with big weapons. I didn't care about balance nor strategy. I made 10000 mamoth tanks and won game after game vs my friends and the computer.

Now after playing Starcraft for so long (and maybe my age now being 17) I could never go back to that sort of gameplay. It doesn't appeal to me, theres no depth and it never will again.

i got bored of starcraft after playing the second singleplayer mission

Don't talk to me thx. You know why? I've never completed the single player campaigns either. We are talking about MUTLIPLAYER BALANCE here, Starcraft managed to hook me from the first online game of it I ever played, and I'm still as enthusiastic about it today as I was before. So you go off and play your little campaigns and rid the world of NOD terrorism.
(btw there should be a law against people who played through Dune 2000 making opinions. What are you like 1 of 3 who actually bothered?)

"...I dont think id and blizzard use the same model; id make a new engine and wrap the same game around it (basically) and blizzard take the same engine and wrap a slightly different game around it. Haha. ..."

Sorry, this demanded my attention.

About 6 months into the development of StarCraft, they went back to scratch and restarted from the ground up and built an entire new engine (they were using the War2 one to start with) from the ground up, as it became clear the old one didnt suit their needs with regards to how much they wished to advance their RTS series.

Sorry, I wasn't gonna comment, but the implication that Blizzard used the same engine for war2 and SC demanded a response.

If you want to know about SC development, you could drop me a line before posting Trog ;p

I fink if blizzard and id hold hands and sing round a campfire then the world would be a happier place and we would have lots of fun games to play instead of just arguing about one game being better than another cause I play a lot of games and i like most of them so I'm not going to say how good one games company is for making cool games compared to this other games company which makes different games that they're just as good and everybody is happy cause the world is a better place if I don't say stuff like that and I'd get to go out with Megan.

/me points at the "haha" for the easily bated.

FYI, I actually followed SC development pretty closely :)

I dunno, this hogdewd sounds like he's the bees knees in game development... maybe you should ask him before you post next time trog!!!

I just read this entire post, I just have to say, you all skipped over the fact that populous 2 wasnt that much different populous 1 but sif populous 3 didnt own yew and it was a 360 degree camera angel 3d game so :P

(but the units were exactly the same for both sides haha)

tone

im sorry did you say that gdi had an edge on nod because you like to tank rush well gee i guess that means that you are some kind of moron who cant tell the differnce between red alert and command & conquer you wont hear any arguement from me that red alert was the tank rushing game from hell but to say the same about C&C is just proving that you have no more right to be talking about C&C then trog does about SC (sorry man but plok is right) have you ever tried getting 3 stealth tanks in their base before they had decent defences up
yeah youll find that that will f*** up your tank rushing plans or using orcas to thin out the rushing force before they hit your defences
yeah tanks were the be all and end all you f***ing gimp get a clue

Well, I’m not gonna argue too much on this since my real area of gaming expertise is fighting games and anything snes =]

But a comment on blizzard and id

I actually think that I appreciate blizzard's approach to games a lot more than id's basically with the exception of doom (which somehow achieved great atmosphere and I highly suspect this achievement was accidental) id make a game engine and that’s pretty much it, its the mods that are made for it that are more interesting and although id may be very talented code crunching programmers their games lack any substance going beyond game play mechanics. I think blizzard make an effort to instil their games with atmosphere and storyline, just compare SC to TA and you’ll see far more effort in these departments, and although Diablo was basically a s*** game (err try playing a real rpg before you disagree with me) ita had great atmosphere due to well drawn visuals and music and voices etc.

I think that blizzard put more effort into their games and don’t rely on past successes the way id do, I mean id have released 3 games that are little more than engines and nothing skilful in terms of single player game play or atmosphere (err multiplayer death match takes no talent to make its the players that give it its substance) but I think blizzard aim to make the best game they can given what's available technology wise, sure sc was 2d but if t had been 3d it would have looked a lot uglier given its time and ugly square polygon graphics leave a game with a technical clinical feel that detracts from any atmosphere (TA perfect example).

Now ill just say that I have barely played any blizzard games or id games as both appeal to me little...although I did play q2 single player a lot basically because it was the first time I learnt to use a mouse to play an fps game and I suddenly found how fun that was and how I could actually be good now. I simply look at the games and have more respect for a company that focuses on something beyond game engine and mechanics.

That said, if you want to play a real game by talented game makers go play final fantasy or one of the other numerous and excellent console rpg's =]

Only reason I bothered to write this long post is that I'm waiting for someone to arrive with my wallet because I have to go out and buy something and they have not arrived yet, basically I don’t care about this topic

oo someone is getting upset and passionate about this :)

I'm glad I can touch people in such a way :)
What you basically just said goes against the majority of Westwood fans who agree that Red Alert was a much better game than C&C and had a lot more depth to it. Myself I didn't like it because by that time I was deeply involved with the strategy in SC.

I'm going to give you a lesson on the actual "balance" of C&C

Now "Stealth" Tanks: Detectable by units and buildings if they came within a certain radius. This radius was larger than the tanks actual range itself, plus it had to decloak when firing. So I put towers nearby and your stealths get wasted without doing anything. OR - Autorepair - sure get 3 stealths in my base before I can tank rush go ahead I'll just repair all my buildings until my tanks show up and waste them into the ground. And remember I CAN have tanks when you have stealths so don't try to justify it by saying you would attack my harvies so I couldn't build any. before they had decent defences up so your saying all the while your getting Stealth tanks I'm not doing anything? Yes well if thats your impression of C&C players maybe you should find some descent competition.

I wasn't aware that NOD had orcas lol I was always under the impression they were GDI units. C&C edit is fun huh?

Your examples are nothing more than pathetic excuses of trying to dig yourself out of a hole you fell to deeply into. I know as much about the original C&C as I do about SC because I have PLAYED it to death.

I have a million other reasons why GDI own NOD in C&C and if you would like me to list them please reply with more personal abuse and state examples you obviously picked out of a weeties box from your "extensive" experience with strategy in C&C.

Gettin stale 'n that. Trog, ya wrong, wrong, wrong. No amount of "I followed SC's development heaps close and have watched it played heaps" or "this is my own opinion", cutesy follow-up lies about Bliz development, or bizarre sideline arguments about parrallels between id and bliz is going to change that.

Those who are qualified to talk about the progression from the warcraft series to starcraft (ie, have played them to any extent) have given their 3 cents. You made the mistake of bundling Westwood and Blizzard into the same basket, its a regrettable mistake but not worth any more debate over.

/shrug. Back to AUS-1.

Oh yeh, if you want to have a look at some reasoned, educated discussion about the future of RTS and some other stuff peripheral to this topic, here ssome links.

http://www.aus-1.au.nu/show.php?id=18670
http://www.aus-1.au.nu/show.php?id=18587

Please, save your witty rejoinders, I won't read em, cos this stupid thread is already taking too much time so I won't be back =P

yer run away hogfather, yew know itd own yew in populous anyway

man ToNe i really dont think you get it do you
i never said that nod had orcas and i will tell you that the sides were balanced in the oridginal nod got gun turrets at 250 a peice and im sorry but if you latticed them around your base no tank rush would ever get though and anyone who says that red alert was more in depth then C&C needs their f***ing head read

do you want to know how to win a game of ra be allies build light tanks by the dozen and manouver them yeah real in depth

that manouvering was the only really decent gameplay that westwood added to ra over c&c and what about nod artillery and other long range units they were very useful for taking out gdi base defence before slipping a little force through their then wide open front door

and did i ever say that i would make a frontal assault with 3 stealth tanks um no

3 stealth tanks bugging out in the back of your base waiting for the "unbeatable rush" to leave for my base then they pop out and start f***ing over your base

the only downfall that i will give nod is that the way they got units was a tad unfair because if you got stuck with the bottom right hand corner it took for ever for your units to turn up

this said gdi were more then capable of laying down the smaq its just that if a good nod player was playing he stood an equal chance of victory

What does NOD stand for?
Throughout the games the acronym is never actually spelled out and I've never met anyone who actually knows.

I'm not sure where that came from, Hogfather, but whatever; I have a feeling you read ToNe's post and thought it said trog somehow.

Err, too many words!
I can't be bothered reading any of the posts above - they're just too long :).