Much of this teenager's free time revolved around the new sci-fi-strategy game. The 'Starcraft' CD did not leave his CD-ROM drive for close to three years. (And only then because the CD-ROM had gone bad, and needed replacing.) His two closest friends he met because 'Starcraft'. While the game did not shape his teenage years, it was certainly a large gear that helped turn things.
When the sequel was announced, the teenager, now grown up into a man, was understandably excited. But that excitement was mixed with a twinge of fear. How can you make the sequel to one of the most successful games of all time? Blizzard Entertainment is good, but can even they top 'Starcraft'? We all remember how 'The Matrix' sequels worked out.
The biggest fear was that 'Starcraft 2' would lose some of that X-Factor, that special spark, that set it apart from other strategy games. Even when it was released, the graphics were not top of the line. The story was great, and the multiplayer was phenomenal, but it always felt like there was a little something extra that gave it the push from the "great game" category into that "something special" category. How can you hope to recreate that intangible?
This teenager-turned-man is happy to report: Blizzard pulled it off. They gave us a new game, with new graphics and new units but that still has that same X-Factor that made the original so amazing. It's a worthy successor to the original.
If you read the "official" reviews you'll see numerical scores dished out. They are all high, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5. They all say how good the games is, BUT the graphics are good, but not top-of-the-line, and how the story is good, but there is this flaw and that flaw, blah, blah, blah blah.
All of the reviews are missing the point. Sure, there are flaws. The game is not perfect. But to quote a great TV series: "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." The magazine reviews from 1998 said that SAME THING about the original 'Starcraft' and it has happily withstood the test of time. Even today, I can walk in Walk-Mart store and pickup the original 'Starcraft'. A 12 year old game. I suspect 12 years from now, I will still be able to walk into a retail store and buy 'Starcraft 2
All because of that X-Factor.
-Shaun
6 comments:
I know the feeling man. I remember when we first met, we were at a LAN playing Tribes 2(or trying rather) and Star Craft. I still remember Dan rolling into my base with 12 battle cruisers before finding his way to you and Sukki.
That is one of my fondest Starcraft memories. I met Dan through the game, and in turn met you, Keith, Sukup and everyone else.
I disagree to a certain extent. Only because the portion of the game that appeals to me most seems to be lacking.
SC1 was a great game and it was on the heals of RedAlert so that type game play was still fresh. SC2 has VERY much the sam,e feel as Warcraft3. Not too many pieces, not too many structures, limited space and resource are consumed faster. If you put SC2 up against Warcraft3 comparing tech trees I think you would see in incredible similarity. Plus, whats really new with SC2??? As you said it's a new coat of paint but the style and perspective are the same. I don't see anything "new". Blizzard has been great at "new" but no new here.
Now for the part of that game that is lacking. The game play I like the most is coop. When you group with your friends against a common enemy. Strategies and win the game. On this SC2 fails for me. Again, nothing new and the only thing you get from coop is, well, you are on the same team. Communication is there if you want it, but it limited to HELP! Im being attacked. Coordinated attacks are not needed. Sharing of resources is there, but again, not needed. No time do they push you to either of these points its just there. Not to mention the team/coop play style is the SAME as single player, you are just "teamed".
I remember games of Rise of Legends where you have to communicate and work together MUCH more.
- Hey Im going to build this wonder, ok Ill build this other one. WAIT a minute, I wanted that one...
- You cover the west, Ill get the East. Leave North open and we'll hope they don't hit there.
etc...
plus they had limited number of piece you could build so you could not just mass one unit and attack. The games lasted long because the dynamics demanded it and it felt FUN. When you won you felt like you had accomplished something. OH, and yes they lasted long, but they also had a time limit, so you had to MOVE.
All that being said I love SC2. I just think it could have been SOOOO much more. I wish it had been but I will still play it.
I said Rise if Legends, I menat Rise of Nations. For me Nations was the better game. Both were stilla blast but Nations had more.
Britt, I agree with your point. Starcraft 2 is a new coat of paint over an old classic. It brings a few new tricks to the table (Units who ignore terrain, for one) but the overall feel of the game is the same. That is exactly what I wanted from it. I didn't want them to mess with an equation that worked so well. I agree that the co-op play out of the box is lacking somewhat. The AI can be predictable and teamwork, while required, is not a deep process. Where I think co-op will shine is the User-created content. One of the main reasons that Starcraft 1 has held up so long is all the custom maps. Already we are seeing some amazing co-op maps out there, and I have no doubt the best is yet to come.
Last time we played co-op, the computer rushed my so I ran my builders into Shaun's base. We built an expansion together while our allies got destroyed(we tried to help). We then built up a large coilition fleet and wiped the floor with all of the computer players. That being said, you are right. A lot of coordination isn't really necessary. It pretty much goes, survive the computer onslaught, build up some forces, attack.
Post a Comment